매매대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420
2. From Nos. 3 to 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the first instance, which was used or added, up to Nos. 20 to 2, 300,000 won, “The Plaintiff agreed to reduce the purchase price of the instant scrap to KRW 230,000,000 after selling the said scrap to the Defendant on or around December 30, 2015. The Defendant received KRW 71,000,000 out of the purchase price from the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a value-added tax of KRW 23,00,000,000 (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 23,00,000,000, KRW 71,000,000, and delay damages thereon).”
Then, the first instance judgment No. 20 states, “The Plaintiff appears to have prepared a tax invoice for the purchase price of the instant scrap machine, and the Defendant paid money for the purchase price of the instant scrap machine to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant appears to have issued a tax invoice for the purchase price of the instant scrap machine to the J which finally purchased the instant scrap machine.” However, the Plaintiff asserts that the purchaser of the instant scrap machine from the Plaintiff should be deemed the Defendant, on the grounds that the circumstances cited by the Plaintiff appeared to have occurred in the process of purchasing the instant scrap machine from the Plaintiff and selling it to a third party, and on the grounds of such circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was the party who purchased the instant scrap machine from the Plaintiff as the party who purchased the instant scrap machine.”
7) On the 7th page of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff asserted that the initial scraper’s sales amount was KRW 380,000,000, and that there was no agreement to reduce the sales amount (the first page of the preparatory brief dated June 10, 2019).