A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to the cited part A, the Plaintiff: (a) operated the machinery manufacturer and repair company under the trade name of “C”; (b) the Defendant provided services from March 2016 upon the Defendant’s request for machinery management and repair; and (c) the Plaintiff continuously provided services from around March 2016 to the Defendant; and (d) issued each tax invoice of KRW 23,200,000 in total and total of the supply value and tax amount during the first half of the year 2016 to the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant claimed service payment by issuing a tax invoice of KRW 20,935,000 in total to the Plaintiff over several occasions from March 15, 2016 to May 31, 2019.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the service price that the Plaintiff did not receive from the Defendant is 22,450,000 won (=20,185,000 won - 23,200,000 won - 20,935,000 won). Thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from July 24, 2019 that the Defendant seeks to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform the instant case from July 24, 2019 to June 3, 2020, which is the date of this decision, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. While the Plaintiff asserts that the service payment claim against the Defendant should be paid more than KRW 12,841,410 (i.e., KRW 35,291,410 - KRW 22,450,00) in addition to the above amount recognized, the Plaintiff’s dismissal portion is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff’s additional payment was made from the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this.

2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's assertion has already been paid to the plaintiff.