1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

3.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a corporation whose business objective is the manufacturing, selling, collecting, leasing, service business, etc. of electronic apparatus, machinery, apparatus, and related parts, and the defendant is a merchant who engages in manufacturing business, such as dynasium processing, etc., with the trade name of B.

B. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied electronic parts at the request of Nonparty C by means of the processing of the electronic parts (such as a tide saving season assembly, SMT, heat heat, etc.).

C. In relation to the above parts processing and supply, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 16,34,90 on January 31, 2015, with the supply value of KRW 16,334,90 on the supply value, KRW 1,63,490 on the aggregate amount, KRW 17,968,390 on the aggregate amount, KRW 2,48,790 on May 31, 2015, KRW 348,790 on the aggregate amount, KRW 3,836,690 on the aggregate amount, and KRW 2,015,000 on June 30, 2015, KRW 201,50 on the aggregate amount, KRW 2,216,500 on the aggregate amount, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff processed electronic parts at the request of the non-party C, who is an employee of the defendant, and supplied them, and the defendant paid a total of KRW 5.6 million and did not pay the remainder.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the non-party C was not an employee of the defendant, and that it was allowed only once to lend the business registration certificate so that C may issue tax invoices in transactions unrelated to this case, and that the defendant did not have any transaction with the plaintiff.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the fact that the defendant allowed C to issue a tax invoice to the person who is supplied with the defendant is recognized.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the above evidence and evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the overall purport of the arguments, namely, clothing, etc.