A. From July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff continued to engage in delivery transactions, such as security exhaustions, to November 15, 2017 for the Defendant.

B. From August 26, 2017 to September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with an amount equivalent to KRW 13,440,509 (including value-added tax), and an amount equivalent to KRW 22,97,931 (including value-added tax) from September 26, 2017 to October 25, 2017, and issued electronic tax invoices. From October 26, 2017 to November 25, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied an amount equivalent to KRW 7,475,242 (excluding value-added tax).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the price of goods to the plaintiff, regardless of whether the plaintiff issued the tax invoice.

Therefore, the Defendant, as requested by the Plaintiff, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 43,913,682 (i.e., KRW 13,440,509 KRW 22,97,931 KRW 7,475,242) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the day on which the application for the payment order in this case was served to the day of full payment.

As to the above 43,913,682 won, the plaintiff additionally claimed for the payment of damages for delay of commercial affairs at 6% per annum from the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case. The base date of the above damages for delay is not specified, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had already been suffering from delay before the filing date of the application for the payment order of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.