1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company selling electrical appliances, such as electric wires and cables, and the Defendant is a company selling lighting fixtures, etc.

B. The Plaintiff traded between November 2009 and November 2013 to supply electrical appliances to the Defendant via a business employee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, testimony of the first instance and the first instance trial witness C and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied electrical appliances to the Defendant from November 2009 to November 201, 2013, but did not receive a total of 49,745,465 won from the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff claimed for payment of the unpaid amount of KRW 49,745,465 and damages for delay against the Defendant.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice to the Defendant from February 2013 to May 2, 2013 under the agreement with the Defendant without real transaction. As such, the part of issuance of the false tax invoice cannot be claimed as the price for the goods. 2) As can be seen in the Plaintiff’s sales employees C, which was prepared and issued by the Defendant, on June 10, 2014, the deposit sheet (the last page among the documents submitted in Eul No. 1) and the joint copy (No. 8) and the balance sheet (No. 18,19,20 of the evidence No. 36), the Defendant does not have any outstanding amount by paying the goods to the Plaintiff in full.

3) Although the Defendant paid KRW 7,290,00 to the Plaintiff on January 7, 2014 as the price for goods, the Plaintiff’s transaction ledger (Evidence A 3) does not reflect the above payment details. In addition, the details of payment that the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff on several occasions (in spite of the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 7, 9, and 13, the above amount is not reflected in the repayment amount, and thus, the above payment amount out of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment for the goods ought to be deducted.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s trading director (No. 3; hereinafter “the first trading director”) against the Defendant to determine the cause of the claim.