2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures semiconductor equipment, steel structure, etc. under the trade name of “C” and the Defendant is a person who manufactures semiconductor equipment, steel structure, etc. under the trade name of “D” from January 4, 2016.

B. The Defendant, from January 2016 to April 2018, was engaged in transactions with the Plaintiff, such as manufacturing and processing of equipment. From December 2017 to April 2018, he/she moved into the E-building leased by the Plaintiff and operated the business.

C. During the aforementioned occupancy period, the Defendant ordered the manufacture and processing of the equipment ordered by F, G, H, I, and J, and issued a tax invoice with the following details:

Customer-Defendant Issuance (including Additional Tax) No. 208.28, 201, 208, 201, 205, 208, 302, 208, 201, 208, 302, 208, 201, 208, 201, 30, 205, 208, 208, 208, 201, 30, 206, 208, 205, 208, 106, 30, 200, 205, 208, 106, 206, 208, 106, 106, 205, 208, 106, 206, 205, 206, 208, 200, 2005, 206, 2017

D. On July 31, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 82,751,130 (hereinafter “instant sales amount”) to the Defendant in the same amount as the tax invoice issued by the Defendant (including the difference of partial negative portion) as above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) : the defendant and K Deputy Director completed the work ordered to be the plaintiff's employee as raw materials cost and transportation cost incurred by the plaintiff. The defendant merely received money by issuing only the sales tax invoice under the defendant's name because he operated his business. The plaintiff should return to the plaintiff the total amount of the sales of this case.