1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the wholesale and retail business of agricultural, livestock, freezing, processed food, and food materials with the trade name of "C". The Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who engages in simple restaurant business, agricultural, fishery, fishery, fishery product food, processed food and industrial product wholesale and retail business with the trade name of "D," and the Plaintiff and the Defendant supply food materials to each school meal service provider.

B. On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) to the Defendant regarding the supply price of the industrial products of KRW 71,772,727 (including surtax 78,950,000) (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is that the Defendant purchased food materials on credit on behalf of the Defendant, since the Defendant could not purchase food materials to a school meal service business entity as a new business entity commencing the supply of food materials.

The Plaintiff purchased and supplied meals of KRW 1,026,167,296 for the Defendant, such as the monthly sales statement prepared by the Plaintiff (Evidence 3-1, 200) from March 2012 to December 2012, 2012. However, the Defendant paid only KRW 907,88,162 out of the price of the said goods, and the price of the goods to be attempted is KRW 118,279,134.

On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff issued the instant tax invoice for KRW 78,950,000 (including value-added tax) out of the proceeds of the attempted goods to the Defendant on December 31, 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seek against the Defendant for the payment of the amount of KRW 78,950,000 and the delay damages from November 1, 2013, which is the day following the date on which the tax invoice was created.

(2) The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant invested in the Plaintiff’s company, thereby causing losses to the Plaintiff’s proposal to commence the business of supplying food materials for school meal, and the Defendant did not receive food materials from the Plaintiff, but can be supplied with goods at a price of 90% for the Defendant’s school meal service company.