1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 59,829,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 14, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the stone processing and manufacturing business, etc., and the Defendant is a person engaged in the construction business, etc. with the trade name “C”.

B. From January 28, 2015 to September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with necessary stone products at the new E construction site outside D, which was executed by the Defendant as the owner of the building. Accordingly, the details of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant are as follows.

The issue date (whichever is earlier) No. 1 on February 27, 2015, 49,500,000 on March 31, 2015; 31,44,520,00 March 41, 2015; 41,44,568 47,520,00 on May 47, 2015; 47,520 on May 4, 2015; -47,520,00 on May 4, 2015; 829,00 on September 2, 2015; 198, 293,568

C. On March 6, 2015, the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 138,464,560,00 in total, KRW 138,460,00, KRW 47,520,00 on April 7, 2015, KRW 9.4,50,000 on April 9, 2015, and KRW 41,44,560 on May 7, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without a dispute, entry of Gap's 1 to 10 evidence (if there is a tentative number, including a tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of 59,829,568 won (the portion issued as of September 2, 2015) excluding the remainder of 138,464,560 won from the stone price of 198,293,568 won and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 14, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion is merely a “I” and “I” operated in the name of G in the name of H, and a contract for the supply of stone and construction of stone products, and there was no transaction of stone products with the Plaintiff. However, as it is difficult for G to issue a tax invoice, the Defendant issued a tax invoice in lieu of the Plaintiff’s name and deposited the stone price into the Plaintiff.

The supply value of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff includes not only the stone price, but also the wages of the stone constructors.