1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6, evidence 10, and evidence 11 (which include the serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), unless there is a dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings.

The plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells LED lighting, etc., and the defendant is the representative of the occupants of the non-acceptance apartment (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") in Cheongyang-si, Cheongyang-ri, 488 in South-gu.

B. In around 2014, the Defendant decided to install high-efficiency lighting for the instant apartment through the Korea Electric Power Industry Foundation’s electric power plant support project that the Korea Electric Power Corporation supports a certain amount of money as the Electrical Industry Foundation Fund, and the high-efficiency lighting lighting for the installation of the Korea Electric Power Company was purchased from the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendant filed an application for subsidies with the Korea Electric Power Corporation for the installation volume of high-efficiency DaD lighting, 700, and the installation volume was determined to be 643. On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract under which the Plaintiff concluded on August 14, 2014, 643 of the instant apartment lighting (a model name: JL-GLD-1W; hereinafter “instant lighting”) to supply the instant apartment to Korea Electric Power Corporation 6,80 won for subsidies to Korea Electric Power Corporation and Defendant 3,800 won (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied 643 lighting of this case to the apartment complex of this case, and thereafter the Defendant demanded additional quantity for A/S, and additionally supplied 70 lighting lighting of this case on January 6, 2015.

E. On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with an amount of KRW 2,687,740 (including a quantity of KRW 643, unit price of KRW 3,800, and value-added tax) equivalent to the Defendant’s share, and issued a tax invoice with an amount of KRW 4,372,373 (including KRW 643, unit price of KRW 6,182, and value-added tax) equivalent to the amount of subsidies for the Korea Electric Power Corporation on November 7, 2014.

F. On the other hand, the defendant.