약정금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if evidence submitted to the court of first instance and evidence submitted to this court are combined, the fact-finding and judgment of the judgment of the court of
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the supplementary decision as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Supplementary judgment
A. As to the assertion on additional tax portion, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the value-added tax should have been borne by the deceased when the Plaintiff reported the value-added tax pursuant to the construction contract with the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”), but the Plaintiff’s failure to file the said value-added tax solely considered the convenience of the deceased, which was made upon the deceased’s request or under the agreement with the deceased. Accordingly, the additional tax related to the value-added tax should be borne by the Defendants, the heir of the deceased, who is the heir of the deceased. 2) According to the evidence No. 2 of the judgment, the Defendant entered into a construction contract with the deceased for construction (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the condition that the Defendant would build the building by September 30, 2012 on the ground of Sungnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the total construction amount is KRW 577,500,000, and it should be recognized as being stated “value-added tax” next to that.
However, in full view of the following circumstances, the above facts alone asked the deceased not to report the value-added tax on the Plaintiff, by taking account of the following circumstances, which can be seen as following: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 9-1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 9-1 and 1.
It is insufficient to deem that an agreement has been reached between the deceased and the plaintiff not to report the value-added tax, and it may be recognized otherwise.