1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 312,290,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from August 12, 2014 to September 30, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company manufacturing ELD lighting, etc. The Defendant is a company manufacturing, distributing, and selling ELD lighting, and the three-dimensional testing company (hereinafter “Sacc”) is a company selling lighting equipment, type light equipment, ELD, etc.

B. From February 28, 2014 to March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant that the Plaintiff supplied KRW 312,290,000 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s tax invoice”) in total amount of 312,290,000,000 (hereinafter “instant goods”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 (including additional number), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, regardless of whether the Defendant received the price for the instant goods from the three-dimensional test, the Defendant was paid the price for the instant goods, and that the Defendant supplied the instant goods to the three-dimensional factory, the place of delivery indicated in the order form, and sought the payment for the instant goods from the Defendant.

According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 2 (including each number), the Plaintiff sold the instant goods to the Defendant in KRW 312,290,000. The fact that the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to the Sejongcheon Factory, which is the delivery place designated by the Defendant, was that the Defendant prepared a written payment guarantee notice that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 195,690,000 into the account designated by the Plaintiff by March 31, 2014, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 312,290,000 to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to this, under an agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the Defendant, and the three parties, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff among them, at the same time, at the same time receiving the price for the instant goods as indicated in the Defendant’s tax invoice issued by the Defendant from the three parties.