1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The Plaintiff entered into a transaction in which the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for filling and delivering gelgel in plastic caps produced by the Defendant from January 2018 to March 2019, and the fact that the price for goods equivalent to KRW 20,871,000 has not been settled based on the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff has not been settled between the parties, or that the payment for goods has not been settled by either Party A 1, 2, 9, 10 (including the serial number) may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that there is an outstanding amount of KRW 20,871,000 based on the transaction statement and tax invoice issued by the plaintiff, and that there was an outstanding amount of KRW 20,871,000. The defendant asserts that the amount of the goods claimed by the plaintiff exceeded the payment of the goods.

B. In light of the following circumstances, where there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment, or where the whole purport of the pleadings is comprehensively acknowledged as a whole, it is reasonable to deem that each month the settlement of the unit price, quantity, and price was made by the original Defendant according to the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written statement of transaction specifying the unit price, quantity, and amount of supplied goods, and then traded by issuing the tax invoice and receiving the Defendant’s settlement; (b) the Defendant paid the purchase price in substitution according to the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff; and (c) there was no evidence to deem that the Defendant agreed on the settlement of the unit price, quantity, and price according to the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff.

In particular, the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant in this case is to pay back the Hegel products from China to the defendant and deliver them to the defendant.