1. The Defendant’s KRW 167,692,90 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from October 19, 2013 to September 26, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is engaged in the wing business, etc. with the trade name “D” in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and the Defendant is engaged in the trade name “F” in Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, with the trade name “F.” (2) The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods, such as bedclothes, etc. from around 20 years to February 2013.

B. On November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff, from Nonparty G, the Defendant’s wife, to November 20, 2012, entered the details of goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant from November 20, 2012 and the balance of the goods prices in KRW 170,694,90 (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant transaction ledger”).

(2) Around February 2013, the Plaintiff signed the sales ledger. (2) Around February 5, 2013, the Plaintiff sent by facsimile the sales ledger (Evidence B; hereinafter “instant sales ledger”) in which the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant by February 5, 2013, the details of the goods and the balance of the price of the goods to the Defendant by February 5, 2013.

3) On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a written confirmation of balance and a detailed statement of goods transaction to the Defendant of the balance sheet of KRW 186,092,90 (Evidence No. 35, hereinafter “instant balance certificate”).

On the other hand, as of May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff sent by facsimile the following details: (a) as of October 23, 2012, KRW 600,000,000 from the Defendant: (b) around November 2012, KRW 180,000,000 on December 17, 2012; (c) KRW 100,000 on January 28, 2013; and (d) KRW 5,00,000 on February 28, 2013; and (d) the balance of the purchase price of goods included a description of goods trading KRW 177,692,90 (Evidence 14; hereinafter referred to as “instant description of goods trading”).

have been prepared.

The plaintiff asserts that there was an omission in the amount repaid by the defendant after sending the written confirmation of the balance of this case to the defendant, and that the plaintiff sent the written statement of the transaction of this case to the defendant by facsimile with the consent of the defendant. However, the defendant did not have received the written statement of the transaction of this case by facsimile.