1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

(4) The fact that a tax invoice with the date of supply and the value of supply in relation to the supply of the goods of this case (1) through (4) is issued, and that the defendant received it is as above.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 7-1 through 4, A’s evidence No. 8-1, 9, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 5-1, Eul evidence No. 5-2 through 5, Eul evidence No. 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above facts alone were concluded with respect to the goods No. 1 or No. 4 of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to the Defendant, or there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The tax invoices for the instant goods recognized by the Defendant include “Bbox 800*130*250 (unit price of 650,000, 16) 10,400,000, Abox 230*1040*230, 2500, 17, 17, 4,2500, 190, 197, 190,000,” and the unit price and quantity of each goods in the supplied goods.

2. 7. 7. Transport charges 350,00 won are also indicated, but the tax invoice for the goods of this case 1 to 4 is written only as “out of a lecture,” and only the value of supply is written without indicating the volume and unit price of the supplied goods.

B. Although the Plaintiff submitted a statement of transaction on the goods Nos. 1 through 4 of this case, the Plaintiff’s statement of transaction submitted by the Plaintiff does not have the seals or signatures of the Defendant.

On March 31, 2017, the Plaintiff did not clearly assert that each of the above transaction statements was presented to the Defendant, and rather, according to the main contents presented by the Defendant, the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s goods Nos. 1 through 4.