A. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff processed and supplied nine-type gold-type items for the motor vehicle parts to the Defendant from July 10, 2016 to July 30, 2016, and issued a trading list indicating the total value of supply on July 30, 2016 as KRW 45,782,727, and obtained signature from B who is the Defendant’s employee, in the column for acceptance.

B. On July 30, 2016, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice to KRW 18,478,58,588,588, including KRW 16,79,716 and value-added tax 1,679,872 on its materials and primary processing costs, as well as KRW 28,984,01 (i.e., the above supply value of KRW 45,782,727,798,798,716) for KRW 28,98,778,00,00, plus value-added tax 2,898,00,00 for its materials and primary processing costs, and the Defendant also filed a tax return as above.

C. The Defendant supplied nine gold-type items supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s original company, and paid the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10 million on September 12, 2016, KRW 6,798, KRW 716 on October 19, 2016, KRW 16,798, and KRW 716 on October 19, 2016.

【Evidence A’s Evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, 2, 4, 1-9 of Evidence Nos. 5-1 or 5, and the result of this court’s order to submit tax information to the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A mutual agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the supply price of the goods specified in the transaction specification sheet between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff by signing a confirmation on the transaction specification sheet stating that the supply price on July 30, 2016 by the Plaintiff, who is the Defendant’s employee, is KRW 45,782,727, which the Plaintiff claims.

In addition, even if not, insofar as the Defendant received the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff and reported the amount of tax, the Defendant approved the supply price claimed by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 33,557,872 (i.e., KRW 18,478,588, KRW 31,878,00, KRW 16,798,716).