1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2005, the Plaintiff was supplied with the audience system and soundproof products from Madim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Madhehehehehem”). The Defendant was an employee of Madhemhemhem, who was in charge of transaction with the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff transferred the goods to the Defendant’s account from 2006 to October 201, 2010 at the request of Dammhemhemmmmmmmhe.

C. A crime-friendly camp brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking 51,351,40 won for unpaid goods supplied to the Plaintiff from January 9, 2010 to November 3, 2014, and damages for delay thereof, and won in full.

(Seoul District Court 2014Kadan47785). Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed with Daejeon District Court 2015Na10026, however, the said appellate court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance court, stating that “The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant while engaging in goods transaction with the Defendant from January 9, 2010 to November 3, 2014, and the Defendant received it without objection. The amount of the said tax invoice is deducted from the amount of the money deposited by the Defendant from the amount of the said tax invoice as the price for the goods, consistent with the amount of the claim on the customer’s ledger and the written request, and that “The credibility of the statement on the customer’s claim and the written request, supported by the tax invoice, exists.”

Therefore, the Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2016Da25850, but 2016

9. 8. The dismissal of the appeal was dismissed.

(hereinafter referred to as a "relevant civil lawsuit"). [Ground of recognition] 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 11, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including a branch number if there is a number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The summary of the cause of the claim is from 2010 to 2014 that the Defendant omitted the Plaintiff’s deposit amount from the customer director and did not specify the transaction details.