1. Facts of recognition; and

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s respective “Plaintiffs” under Articles 5 and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is “Defendant”; and (b) the Defendant’s “Defendants” under Chapter 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the Plaintiff is “Plaintiffs”.

3. The defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay expenses incurred in the course of operating the instant agency on behalf of the plaintiff by unilaterally suspending the contract without justifiable grounds.

The plaintiff had suspended the execution of the contract of this case without justifiable grounds for revocation, and the defendant's inputs of 159,636,890 won in total for the agency operation of this case as a substitute for the plaintiff set-off against the defendant's unpaid fees of 86,336,694 won, and the defendant had already been paid 60,000 won from E Co., Ltd., and 641,038 won additional costs were incurred due to the difference from the customer after E Co., Ltd., and 641,038 won was paid after E Co., Ltd., as seen above. In full view of the whole purport of the arguments in each entry in subparagraph 1-6 (tax invoice) and the whole purport of the pleading, value-added tax of 152,042,30 won paid by the defendant is acknowledged as the ground for appeal.

On the other hand, if the victim bears the value-added tax required for repair in order to repair the article owned by another person due to the damage caused by the tort, the victim may claim compensation for the tortfeasor because of the victim's loss, including the value-added tax, if the victim bears the same amount of the repair cost. However, the business operator who is a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act, is a taxpayer of the Value-Added Tax Act