1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 79,158,66 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 8, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in manufacturing and wholesale business of lighting fixtures, etc. in Gwangju City, and the Defendant is engaged in wholesale and retail business with the trade name called E from the D building located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. From August 2005 to April 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods such as ED lighting, etc. In light of the Defendant’s repayment amounting to KRW 2 million on January 13, 2006 and KRW 2,307,500 on July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff has a claim for the amount of goods priceing to KRW 79,158,666 as of April 30, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the above goods price of KRW 79,158,666 and delay damages, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The judgment of the defendant's assertion (1) The defendant argues that since the plaintiff did not sell the goods to the defendant but only agreed to pay the price for the sold goods to the plaintiff among the stored plaintiff's goods, the price for the goods in custody should be deducted from the price for the goods in the amount of KRW 46,150,000 which are currently kept without the defendant's sale.

In light of the records of the court below and the records of the Customer Director (Evidence A) as to whether the defendant agreed to pay only the price for the sold goods among the plaintiff's goods stored in the custody of the defendant, the evidence of the defendant's submission alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, without examining it, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(2) In addition, the Defendant’s agreement that an individual determines a tax invoice as a transaction item and gives and receives the tax invoice is null and void as it constitutes a tax evasion act.