1. The Defendant’s KRW 68,219,659 as well as 5% per annum from July 16, 2015 to October 5, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

From 2011 to March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff was supplied with electric and electronic equipment parts by the Defendant and processed them and supplied them to the Defendant, and traded with the Defendant by means of receiving processing costs.

B. The Plaintiff first issued a tax invoice at the time of the supply of processed goods to the Defendant. However, from around December 201, a tax invoice was issued as if the Defendant supplied the processed goods in proportion to the processing cost when the Defendant paid the processing cost, and the Defendant also received the same.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that when the Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to issue a tax invoice to the amount equivalent to the amount of the processing cost when the Plaintiff did not issue the tax invoice and paid the processing cost, only the remainder after deducting the tax amount from the amount paid by the Defendant as the processing cost.

Therefore, the processing cost currently unpaid is 68,219,659 won.

(The plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with KRW 78,219,659, however, the plaintiff received additional reimbursement of KRW 15,00,000 on July 15, 2015 thereafter, there is no dispute between the parties).

The defendant's assertion does not agree as alleged above by the plaintiff.

Since full amount of the money paid by the Defendant was repaid at processing costs, the remaining amount is only 14,219,661 won.

3. The issues and judgment of the instant case

A. Examining the claims of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, there is no particular dispute between the amount of processing cost for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff

Ultimately, the key issue of the instant case is whether the full amount of the money paid by the Defendant was repaid as the processing cost, or 1/11 of the money paid under the agreement between the original and the Defendant was deducted as the tax amount, and the remainder was repaid as the processing cost by 10/110,000.

(b. Each entry of Gap's 4 to 8, and Eul's 3.