물품대금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff asserted that goods, such as network equipment, monitors, etc., equivalent to KRW 9,391,250 from March 2016 to June 201 of the same year, were directly supplied to the consumers designated by the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of the price.
B. The Plaintiff alleged by the Defendant did not actually supply the above goods to the Defendant, and served the Defendant Company until March 2016.
The plaintiff's request cannot be complied with since only a tax invoice issued in the future of the defendant upon the request of the retired B.
2. Determination
A. In addition to the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 9, and 16 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur operating a telecommunications equipment and network equipment wholesale retail business with the trade name of Eul, and the plaintiff issued a tax invoice after supplying network equipment, etc. to a designated supplier under the direction of the employee in charge of the business of the defendant company running software development and sales business, and traded by the method of issuing the tax invoice and receiving the price from the defendant. Upon the defendant's request, the plaintiff issued the electronic tax invoice of Chapter 5 as shown in the following table according to the product estimate provided by the plaintiff to the defendant at the defendant's employee Eul, and the defendant has completed the purchase tax invoice as set forth in the following table.
B. The following circumstances revealed by the facts of the above recognition, i.e., the Plaintiff presented a written estimate under the name of the Plaintiff on the details of the supply in relation to the tax invoice under the above Chapter 5 to the Defendant, and appears to have issued the tax invoice after obtaining approval from the Defendant’s employees. The Defendant also completed the purchase tax return without any special objection. According to the evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff designated network equipment by June 2016, according to the order of the Defendant’s employees, by June 2016.