1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was prepared and provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on or around March 2013 to April 2013. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the service cost of KRW 13.2 million (including value-added tax of KRW 1.2 million) and the delay damages therefrom.

2. Examining the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the evidence No. 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice for KRW 13.2 million around July 31, 2015, and the Defendant’s employees B used the said electronic tax invoice as data on the purchase cost in the process of filing a value-added tax and corporate tax return for the year 2015.

However, in addition to the purport of the entire argument in the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, it seems that the plaintiff sought the consent of the defendant on July 24, 2015 to issue the above electronic tax invoice, but failed to obtain the explicit consent from the defendant. ② The plaintiff demanded the defendant on September 8, 2015 to pay the above service price, but the defendant did not agree to the payment of the above service price to the plaintiff, and it seems that the defendant did not agree to the payment of the above service price. ③ The defendant appears to have reported the revised tax return on the above part of 13.2 million won in relation to the return of value-added tax and corporate tax in 2015 at the competent tax office around September 20, 2017, and ④ the plaintiff itself appears to have not agreed directly with the defendant on the settlement of the service price (the plaintiff on November 23, 2017). In light of the above evidence No. 201 through No. 7300, the plaintiff's evidence No. 72, the above evidence No.

There is a settlement agreement on the payment of KRW 13.2 million.