A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in advertising agency business under the trade name C, and the Defendant is a company engaged in real estate development and sales agency business.

B. On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the amount of KRW 47,723,500 (including the balance of KRW 5,25,4,700, which took place on March 3, 2014) on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the production, installation, etc. of printed materials and promotional books (hereinafter “instant advertising agency”).

C. In the course of performing the instant advertising agency work, the Plaintiff’s work, such as private goods, was conducted at the request of the Defendant Company.

After consultation with the Defendant Company on June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff sent an electronic tax invoice claiming KRW 48,135,000 and value-added tax 4,813,500 in total, and KRW 52,948,50,00, which is an electronic mail of E-mail, the actual operator of the Defendant Company. Accordingly, the Defendant Company did not raise any objection thereto.

E. On May 18, 2016, the Defendant remitted KRW 1.5 million to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant's payment of the advertising agency price of this case to the plaintiff is 51,448,50 won remaining after deducting the above 1.5 million won paid by the defendant from the above 52,948,500 won claimed by the plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant paid KRW 15,316,00 to the Plaintiff as the price for the advertisement agency in this case, and the price for the advertisement agency in this case claimed by the Plaintiff is excessive (the Defendant’s assertion is deemed null and void because this part of the agreement is an unfair legal act because the price for the advertisement agency in this case exceeds the price for the advertisement agency under the contract in this case). The Plaintiff’s design for the advertisement agency in this case made by