The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with a different date equivalent to KRW 8,00,000, but the defendant merely paid only part of the price of the goods. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the remaining price of the goods and delay damages.

B. The defendant alleged that the defendant paid all the price for the goods actually supplied by the plaintiff, and did not claim that there was no additional delivery of the price for the remaining goods.

2. According to the reasoning of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, the plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who sells building materials in the name of "C" and the plaintiff supplied the defendant, who is an individual entrepreneur engaged in construction, interior fishing, etc. with the trade name of "D", the supply price as of December 29, 2017: The supply price as of December 29, 2017: 8,000,000, item items: the fact that the electronic tax invoice stating other dates and the organization issued to the defendant is recognized.

However, comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above facts and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff were additionally supplied to the defendant the goods equivalent to KRW 2,761,50 of the unpaid price of the plaintiff's assertion in addition to the goods equivalent to the value the plaintiff was paid out of the above supply price, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit

Plaintiff

In addition, the court of the first instance held that the amount stated in the above electronic tax invoice issued on December 29, 2017 does not coincide with the price of the goods actually supplied, and there is no evidence supporting that the goods amounting to KRW 8,000,000 were supplied in addition to the above electronic tax invoice.

B. Furthermore, it is based on the management ledger (Evidence A 2) asserting that the Plaintiff separately entered the details of the goods supplied to the Defendant.