용역비
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is that “the details on which the plaintiff did not pay the service cost” under Section 3 of Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is “the details on which the defendant did not pay the service cost.” As to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial of first instance, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a supplement or additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion as set forth in the following Paragraph 2.
2. Parts to be determined by supplement or addition;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have set up a set of funds for the Defendant to repay only a voluntary amount intermittently, and thus, the money that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff should be appropriated in order of the obligation that became due and due according to statutory appropriation of performance.
The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 299,876,870 from around September 2010 to around 2017. However, if the Defendant appropriated KRW 248,820,000 paid to the Plaintiff to the time of the instant lawsuit in consecutive order until the due date, the amount entered in the tax invoice issued after September 18, 2015 remains. Since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit within three years thereafter, the Plaintiff’s claim for service payment did not expire by prescription.
B. In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 1 and No. 1 of the judgment, the Defendant: (a) acknowledged that the Defendant remitted money equivalent to the sales on the specific date among the total sales of the tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff by combining several items to the Plaintiff; (b) in light of the above, the Defendant, as the obligor, designated the Defendant’s debt at the time of repayment, in the light of the following: (a) the entry of “statement” in the transaction statement of the Defendant’s passbook does not have the same indication as the Plaintiff’s passbook; (c) the amount of