손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 11, 2012, between Defendant B and Defendant B, the Plaintiff drafted a construction-based standard contract under which D’s construction works are newly built housing units (hereinafter “instant construction works”), the construction period from December 12, 2012 to May 12, 2013, the contract amount of KRW 546,00,000, and Defendant B’s contractor (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a construction project agreement between the Defendant Company and the new construction of urban-type residential housing and the date of commencement: 2012; the expected date of completion: 2013; the amount of public funds: the amount of the contract; 420,000,000 (excluding the amount of value-added tax); and the standard construction contract between the Defendant Company and the contractor (hereinafter “instant second contract”); and hereinafter “instant second contract”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is invalid in accordance with the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act, since the Plaintiff formed the instant secondary contract with the Defendant Company, even though Defendant Company was merely performing the instant new construction work, and concluded the instant secondary contract. As such, it constitutes an express intent and the Defendant Company was aware of it.
Therefore, the value-added tax of KRW 46,055,243, which was not obligated to pay among the construction cost paid by the Plaintiff under the instant contract No. 2, constitutes unjust enrichment, and the Defendant Company or the Defendant B should return it.
B. Whether the contract 2 of this case constitutes a false declaration of intention or not refers to a single question as to whether the contract 2 of this case constitutes a false declaration of intention, and the truth in the declaration of intention not to be a true intention refers to the idea of the person who wishes to express a specific declaration of intention.