1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Defendant, on February 17, 2014, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the purchase price of goods identical to the instant case under the court’s 2014da504352, and asserted that the instant lawsuit constituted duplicate litigation. However, according to each of the evidence in subparagraphs B through B, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with an excessive, collection, etc. from January 1, 201 to June 2012, and sought payment of KRW 23,83,500 for the purchase price of goods. The instant lawsuit is a claim for the purchase price of goods that the Defendant delivered to the Defendant from July 201 to October 2012, 2012, and thus, both lawsuits cannot be deemed identical.

The defendant's argument in duplicate is without merit.

2. The Plaintiff’s determination on the merits is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied excessive work, etc. to the Defendant on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff had a business registration certificate of the name E, issued a sales tax invoice to the Defendant, and reported the output tax amount, etc., while engaging in wholesale business, such as fruits and vegetables, from July 2012 to October 2012. Although the credit amount reaches KRW 23,102,200, the Plaintiff asserted that the credit amount reaches KRW 23,102,200, the Plaintiff had the business registration certificate of the Defendant under the name of E, and issued the sales tax invoice to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(No details of financial transactions supporting the details of transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant exist, and the defendant did not report the details provided by the plaintiff on the tax invoice by seller. 3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is dismissed.