1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. In light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute over the cause of the claim; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 11 evidence (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales consignment agreement on attracting, selling, and managing "the subscriber of the SK Telecom Telecom and the subscriber of the SKBC" on October 201; (c) according to the above agreement, the Plaintiff supplied the mobile phone to the Defendant under the contract, and sold cash, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the cash sales price to the Plaintiff; and (d) the installment sales price is KRW 10,329,40 (i.e., the total amount of the goods sold by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff (including serial numbers), and (e) KRW 257,400, Apr. 12, 2015; and (e) KRW 30,000,0000,000 for the payment of KRW 305,005.7.7.10

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On this basis, the Defendant asserts that: (a) the sales proceeds of April 2015 claimed by the Plaintiff are not issued; and (b) the value-added tax should not be added by 10%; (c) the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the total amount of KRW 6,881,200 (i.e., the omitted portion of KRW 6,205,300, which was omitted on February 2014), and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is set off against the Plaintiff’s claim as the price for the above goods owned by the Defendant.

B. The duty to issue a tax invoice and the duty to pay the price are mutually meaningful, unless there is any evidence to deem that there was a special agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, such as to reduce the price of the goods unless the tax invoice is issued.