임대료등 청구
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant agreed to lease construction materials, etc. required for the structural construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) from among the Busan East-gu Enterprise Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”). From May 2013 to December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff leased construction materials, etc. to the Defendant and incurred rent of KRW 423,50,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply). Since the Plaintiff received only KRW 148,20,000 from the Defendant, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder rent of KRW 275,30,000 and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.
2. According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), it is recognized that the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 423,50,000 in total from May 31, 2013 to December 30, 2013 from the Plaintiff and the “supplier” from the Plaintiff, and the “supplier” received a tax invoice of KRW 423,50,000 in total from July 1, 2013 to November 19, 2013, and that the Defendant received KRW 148,200,000 in total from the Plaintiff.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as adding the whole purport of arguments to Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and witness Eul's testimony, are acknowledged as having been awarded a contract for the construction of this case by the defendant and the payment of a part of the construction cost has been made as a passbook in the name of Dong-in, one's own household, even though the plaintiff's husband C, who is the plaintiff's husband, was also awarded a contract for the construction of this case by the defendant, and the defendant's payment of a total of KRW 148,200,000, which is the defendant's claim that the former payment was made out of the material rent, are entirely inconsistent with each tax invoice (Evidence No. 2) submitted by the plaintiff. Thus, the possibility that the plaintiff's payment of the construction cost of the construction of this case cannot be ruled out, and the defendant voluntarily filed a value-added tax on KRW 378,00,00