The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. The plaintiff’s argument that the court should add part of the judgment of first instance to this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of first instance except for the addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(A) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the meaning of the language used in this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance). Nos. 7, 13 through 15, “The defendant company appears to have additionally delivered at least 1,461 of the receipt in the custody of the defendant company to the plaintiff according to the receipt certificate (No. 10, each receipt certificate may be trusted with the signature of the employee in charge of the plaintiff).” In accordance with each receipt certificate (No. 10, each receipt certificate may be trusted with the signature of the employee in charge of the plaintiff), it is confirmed that the plaintiff was delivered the medical device of this case by the defendant company and the date different from that of the above receipt certificate.”

Part 8 7: The following shall be added:

Now, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice in accordance with the mandatory quantity stipulated in the instant product supply contract even if the Plaintiff did not receive the instant medical device at the request of the Defendant Company, but it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff issued only the tax invoice according to the mandatory quantity attached to the instant product supply contract, such as: (a) the written evidence Nos. 5 and 6; and (b) the issuance of the tax invoice before December 2015, according to the outcome of the order to submit tax information to the head of Sungnam Tax Office.

In addition, tax invoices issued as of September 20, 2016 are revised tax invoices for the reason that the Defendant Company returned 150 of the instant medical devices supplied by the Defendant Company in relation to the tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff on August 1, 2016.

Ultimately, the issuance of the tax invoice by the defendant company is.