1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the wholesale and retail business of industrial machinery, and the Defendant, a corporation that runs the manufacturing business of agricultural machinery, etc., was established on March 5, 2015 as a representative B, and on October 7, 2015, retired and C was appointed as the representative director.

B. Upon the Defendant’s request on April 14, 2015 and May 1, 2015, the Plaintiff imported machinery and equipment (hereinafter “instant equipment”) such as HD05 DUPPPER, and supplied them to the Defendant’s exhibition center and A/S center (hereinafter “user store”) located in the wife population D on April 20, 2015 and May 6, 2015. After the Defendant requested the issuance of the tax invoice for the instant equipment, the Plaintiff issued the electronic tax invoice of KRW 127,598,268 on the instant equipment (the supply price of KRW 115,98,426 won, value-added tax 11,59,89,433).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 12, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 127,598,269 of the instant equipment costs and delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 1, 2015 to December 22, 2017, which is the date the Defendant rendered a substantial decision on the existence and scope of the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff, as requested by the Plaintiff, for the period from November 1, 2015 to December 22, 2017, and for the period from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. On January 2015, the Defendant asserted that the instant equipment was stored in the warehouse at the time of the Defendant’s acceptance of the request from E and B, and that the Defendant did not conclude the instant equipment supply contract with the Plaintiff on September 7, 2015.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the overall purport of the evidence and arguments mentioned above, are ① the defendant who was the representative of B.