B. On March 3, 2017 to March 2017, 2017, the part of the first instance judgment’s “the facts produced from March 3, 2017,” which read “from March 3, 2017 to March 20, 2017,” which read “the fact that the Defendant: (a) sent a siren whose materials were changed from March 3, 2017 to March 25, 2017; and (b) carried out the process of improving the film quality, such as taking clothes; (c) was mainly carried out for improving the film quality; (d) however, the Plaintiff acquired the gold type in the instant case on April 6, 2017 and notified the Defendant of the rescission of the instant contract on April 18, 2017.”

C. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s 7th through 15th of the first instance judgment accepted the instant gold sentence on April 6, 2017. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-2 and 3 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-3, the Plaintiff stated “* a gold-type tax invoice shall be issued at the time of the payment of the balance, and the balance shall be paid in cash after the issuance of the tax invoice; the Plaintiff approved the balance tax invoice on April 6, 2017; the Plaintiff’s employee sent to the Defendant on April 6, 2017, accompanied by the receipt of goods against the gold-type 3 punishment, and all of the tax invoices were approved. The payment date is expected to be paid in accordance with the internal system; the borrower’s intermediate payment and the intermediate payment will be expected to be required to be paid to the extent of two weeks after the payment of the remainder.”

However, as seen earlier, the instant contract stipulates that the remainder shall be paid after the receipt of the report on the completion of the examination of the gold model. In general, the payment of the remainder under the instant contract is premised on the completion of the work. As such, the remainder stated in the instant contract is after the issuance of the tax invoice.