물품대금
1. The Defendant’s respective KRW 13,671,00 for each of the Plaintiffs and 6% per annum from February 4, 2014 to November 17, 2015.
1. Basic facts: (1) The Plaintiffs supplied approximately 10 years to the Defendant who operated a food restaurant with the trade name of “D” and operated a food restaurant with the trade name of “E” and received KRW 7,768,00 from the Defendant on July 10, 2013; (2) The invoice of July 10, 2013 (Evidence A-5) prepared by the Plaintiffs included the total amount of KRW 34,356,00 in total, KRW 254,00 in total, KRW 35,100 in total, or KRW 35,10,00 in total, or in total, KRW 10,00 in evidence No. 1-5.
2. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant did not pay KRW 30,593,000 for the goods, and the defendant paid KRW 7,768,00 on July 12, 2013 to fully repay the price for the goods, and the invoice submitted by the plaintiffs was unilaterally prepared and its contents cannot be acknowledged.
3. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, and 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of witness F, the plaintiffs (including paper numbers, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, and part of Gap evidence No. 10, hereinafter "the account statement of this case") when supplying the defendant with the product of dissolution.
A. The fact that the invoice of this case was issued, ② The type, quantity, unit price, and amount of the dissolved supplied on the trading day, the former balance, the daily deposit amount, the deposit amount, and the total balance are stated at the bottom, ③ from 2004 to 2012, F, who served as the head of the “E” operated by the Defendant, received the invoice from the delivery employee on the Plaintiff’s side and reported the amount of the goods collected and arranged to the Defendant’s wife, and G, in the manner of depositing the goods into the Plaintiff’s account, can be recognized.
Although the invoice of this case was unilaterally prepared by the plaintiffs, it is with the plaintiffs.