1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the construction business of pipes, heating, etc., and the Defendant is a person who runs the wholesale and retail business of the sanitary machine with the trade name “B”.

B. On March 2, 2017, upon C’s request, the Defendant issued an electronic tax invoice (hereinafter “instant electronic tax invoice”) stating that the Plaintiff may claim the outstanding amount of credit worth KRW 50 million, including the total amount of KRW 50 million of the supply price of Tyl and sanitary instruments KRW 50 million (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) to the Plaintiff.

C. In addition, upon C’s request on March 6, 2017, the Defendant received KRW 55 million from the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account, and transferred KRW 4.4 million to C, and KRW 5.6 million to D, respectively.

On June 24, 2017, the Defendant did not pay KRW 5 million, which is the amount equivalent to the value-added tax, to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant issued the revised electronic tax invoice to revise the instant electronic tax invoice, stating the grounds for correction as “cancellation of the contract”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On March 2, 2017, between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant under which the Plaintiff would be supplied with a different day and a sanitary machine equivalent to KRW 55 million (including value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) The Defendant concluded a contract. (2) The sum totaling value-added tax of KRW 50 million for the amount of KRW 50 million for the goods remitted by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed to supply the goods within one month thereafter.

3) However, the Defendant did not send the goods that had been promised one month or more, and the Defendant issued Masp electronic tax invoices on or around June 24, 2017 to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the rescission of the instant contract. As such, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant contract by delivering the instant complaint, and thus, the instant contract becomes retroactively null and void as it was rescinded.