beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.07.24 2013가합8348

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A operated a stock company B in Nam-gu at the port of port, and leased the name of the Defendant holding a comprehensive construction license from the Defendant and carried out a new construction work for the facilities in Song-gu, Nam-gu (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. From January 13, 2012 to May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied 249,866 km to the instant construction site. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 179,70,000, out of the price of KRW 245,303,894.

C. Since the Plaintiff knew that A was performing the instant construction by borrowing the name from the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied steel bars to the construction site of the instant construction site and issued an electronic tax invoice with the Defendant as the Defendant, and the Defendant approved the said electronic tax invoice.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4 through 6 (including each number in case of additional number), Eul's testimony, the result of the plaintiff representative director's personal examination, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not pay 179,700,000 won for the supply of steel from the plaintiff. On March 11, 2013, the defendant prepared a payment guarantee letter (Evidence A 1) stating that the plaintiff will pay 179,70,000 won to the plaintiff up to May 31, 2013, but did not execute it. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the money stated in the claim.

3. We examine the judgment, Gap evidence No. 1 (B) and the defendant's seal is not recognized, and the authenticity of the seal and the defendant's seal are not acknowledged (the plaintiff did not prove that the stamp image attached to the defendant's name under Gap evidence No. 1 (B) is the defendant's stamp image, and although Gap asserted that he affixed the above stamp image with legitimate delegation from the defendant, it is not sufficient to recognize it solely, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it). The authenticity is not presumed to have been established, and the authenticity is otherwise recognized.