The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff operated an individual business entity (hereinafter “instant business entity”) with the trade name “C” that sells solar batteries parts, etc. from around May 10, 2016.

On the other hand, the defendant is a stock company that sells wafers (wwwfer) etc. which are parts necessary for the manufacture of semiconductors.

B. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff, with the client, remitted USD 42,318 (hereinafter “the instant amount”) to the Defendant; ② on May 8, 2017, USD 50,000 (hereinafter “the instant amount”); ③ on May 10, 2017, USD 68,070 (hereinafter “the instant amount”) to the Defendant; ④ on May 18, 2017, USD 10,000 (hereinafter “the instant amount”) to the Defendant, respectively.

(c)

The Defendant issued an electronic tax invoice (i.e., evidence No. 5-1; hereinafter referred to as “tax invoice of this case”) to the purport that: (i) the supplier was designated as the supplier and supplied to the supplier KRW 48,094,407 on April 18, 2017 to the supply price of KRW 48,094,407 (U.S. dollars 42,318) (i.e., USD 42,318 x publicly notified exchange rate 1,136.50) (i.e., the “tax invoice of this case”) and (ii) the supply price of KRW 77,062,407 (i.e., the US$ 68,070 x the exchange rate of KRW 1,32.10 x each of the instant tax invoices).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 3, 5, 9 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. A. Around the beginning of May 2017, D, an agent of the Plaintiff’s assertion, concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase wafers from the Defendant for USD 150,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid USD 150,00,00, which was the above sales price, to the Defendant, by remitting the instant amount No. 2 and the instant amount No. 4 to the Defendant.