A. The Plaintiff is a business operator engaged in textile manufacturing and wholesale business under the trade name of “D” and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company engaged in manufacturing and selling textile products, and Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. By October 31, 2015, the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice on the last day of each month to the Defendant company by providing or manufacturing the original group of KRW 46,129,250 (IP-M64691, etc.) equivalent to the total amount of KRW 46,250 in accordance with the order of the Defendant company.

C. The Defendant Company: (a) KRW 10 million on June 25, 2015; and (b) the same year to the Plaintiff.

9. 16.4 million won and a total of 14 million won were paid, but the remaining 32,129,250 won (=46,129,250-1 and 4 million won) were not paid.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry or video, or the whole pleading of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 32,129,250 that is not paid to the Plaintiff and the amount of delay damages by adding 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from November 1, 2015 to August 22, 2016, on which the copy of the instant complaint was served, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendant Company asserts that the Plaintiff did not have a duty to pay the price for the Plaintiff’s assertion since the Plaintiff’s original group of KRW 9,724,00,00, which issued the tax invoice on October 31, 2015, issued the tax invoice, was the Plaintiff’s discontinuance of business and did not accept it.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements and videos Nos. 1, 3, and 4, Defendant Company ordered the Plaintiff on July 2, 2015 that the payment period of the 30th of the same month was set and the 3,090 spons of the 30 spons of the 30 spons of the 30th of the 30th of the same month, and accordingly, the Plaintiff was 9,724.