1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are dismissed, respectively.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff runs a prefabricated building construction business in the trade name of “B”.

The defendant is a company aimed at the business of manufacturing contact tapes, etc.

B. From October 8, 2016 to November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with interior construction services (hereinafter “instant services”).

C. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million on November 3, 2016, and KRW 10 million on November 21, 2016, respectively.

On December 19, 2016, the Plaintiff issued electronic tax invoices consisting of 58,300,000 won of the total amount of the Defendant and items as the sales panel construction work.

On December 20, 2016, the Defendant additionally paid KRW 38,300,000 to the Plaintiff as the instant service price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff prepared a daily request for work site and service payment as stipulated in the instant service contract and demanded the Defendant to settle the accounts, and the content and amount was approved by C, who is an employee of the Defendant.

After completing the provision of the instant service, the Plaintiff again submitted a written demand for work and service payment to C and obtained approval from C.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's service cost is 7.6 million won, and there is no fact that the defendant reduced the service cost to 53 million won.

Therefore, in the first place, the defendant is the amount of the tax invoice issued additionally in the certificate No. 1,9360,000 won for the service payment to the plaintiff, and the amount according to the purport of the plaintiff's assertion is KRW 1,93.3 million.

(i) (i) KRW 7.6 million - KRW 58.3 million) and damages for delay are liable to pay them.

Preliminaryly, Defendant also recognized that the service cost is KRW 60,473,450 (excluding value-added tax), and the Defendant shall pay the remainder of KRW 8,220,795 (=60,473,450 x value-added tax 1 - 1 - 58,300,000) to the Plaintiff.