The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 30,366,361 and to the plaintiff from June 20, 2018 to October 15, 2020.

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 22 through 55 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with the total amount of KRW 535,794,302 from February 28, 2013 to February 3, 2016 (i.e., KRW 159,924,391 won, KRW 183,789,812 won in 2014, KRW 182,022,579 won in 2015 and KRW 10,057,520 in 205, KRW 2050 in total, KRW 205, KRW 3650 in total, KRW 205, KRW 208 in total, KRW 205, KRW 3650 in total, KRW 2050 in total, KRW 205, KRW 3605 in total, KRW 205, KRW 2065 in this case).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In light of the fact that there is no signature among the specifications of transactions submitted by the Plaintiff or there are many specifications signed by persons other than the Defendant, 535,794,302 won of the supply of goods claimed by the Plaintiff is an unfounded amount, and the actual amount of goods supplied is merely KRW 491,678,124.

In addition, although the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice, since the Plaintiff had undergone the process of verifying the goods actually supplied by the Defendant, the electronic tax invoice was frequently modified or cancelled, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s supply amount of goods cannot be acknowledged solely on the basis of the electronic tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff.

B. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts, the evidence mentioned above, the statement No. 1 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the pleading.