The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 18,246,00 as well as 6% per annum from February 21, 2019 to March 5, 2021.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity engaged in manufacturing and wholesale business related to the processing of artificial stone with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a business entity engaged in the manufacturing of artificial stone with the trade name of “D.”

B. From November 1, 2013 to October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied personal seal plates to the Defendant, and the amount of KRW 18,246,000 from the Defendant was not paid.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the instant claim

A. According to the above recognition of the part on the claim for the payment of goods, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 18,246,000 and delayed damages, barring special circumstances.

B. Decision 1 on the claim for the payment of value-added tax equivalent to the value-added tax 1) The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant is liable to pay the value-added tax equivalent to the value-added tax accrued from the supply of a man-made stone as well as the purchase price of goods, and as such, the defendant is liable to pay 17

The argument is asserted.

2) Where there is an agreement between the parties to the transaction that imposes value added taxes, a business operator may demand a person who receives the goods to pay an amount equivalent to value added taxes pursuant to the agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da38828, Nov. 22, 2002). However, unless there is an agreement between the purchaser and the seller to pay the value added taxes in addition to the purchase price, it is reasonable to deem that the agreement includes value added taxes in the purchase price, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da62821, Feb. 22, 2000). In light of the above legal principles, the burden of proving that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff to separately receive value added taxes other than the purchase price.

I would like to say.

However, in the case of this case, Gap Nos. 4 and 4.