1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,363,636 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 26, 2014 to May 15, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 4, 2014, the Defendant advertised a wing vehicle as indicated in the separate sheet, and on April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer and acquisition of a truck (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to purchase KRW 59 million for a wing wing Sheet vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with the Defendant on April 5, 2006.

B. On April 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a cargo transport contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant transport contract”) and the terms and conditions of operation and payment are as follows.

D E [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. If an entrepreneur who supplied goods or services fails to issue a tax invoice without good cause despite the receipt of the amount of value-added tax from the supplier who received the goods or services, the supplier is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the amount of the input tax not deducted for the supplier, as a matter of principle. This is the same even if the supplier did not deduct the input tax amount through the procedure for issuing the purchaser-issued tax invoice, in light of the legislative intent or purpose of the system for issuing the purchaser-issued tax invoice, and the fact that there is time limit to the use thereof, etc., the same applies to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, except in extenuating circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da265266, Dec. 28, 2017).