2. Determination

A. We examine the determination on the cause of the claim, and recognize the fact that the Defendant was supplied by the Plaintiff with the goods equivalent to KRW 23,759,800 from October 26, 2015 to November 2015.

Furthermore, under the circumstance that the Defendant is disputing the supply of goods in excess of the above amount or the unit price thereof, the goods equivalent to the amount of the above amount in excess of the above amount in excess of the above amount in question were actually supplied to the Defendant solely based on each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including each number, hereinafter

It is insufficient to recognize that the unit price was agreed as the unit price claimed by the Plaintiff, and there is no other objective evidence to acknowledge it.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff recognized that the Defendant received KRW 5,500,000 from the Defendant as the price for the goods, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 18,259,80,000 after deducting KRW 5,50,000 from KRW 23,759,80,000, and damages for delay.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the amount repaid to the Plaintiff is more than KRW 5,500,000, which is more than KRW 6,500,000, which the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 5,50,000 from the Defendant on October 13, 2015, which was recognized that the Plaintiff received KRW 5,50,000 from the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s account. Accordingly, according to the foregoing, the amount repaid to the Plaintiff is KRW 6,50,00,00, and the Defendant’s argument is with merit.

[Plaintiff] A tax invoice issued as of the date of the transfer of the goods of this case (Evidence A No. 8 was submitted as evidence, but the argument in this regard is explicitly arranged.