공사대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 6, 2014 to December 10, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts are: (a) the Plaintiff completed landscaping works, such as installing facilities and supplying trees (hereinafter “instant construction”) in the “D”; (b) the construction works of the instant construction works around the end of 2013; (c) the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,574,964 to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2014 and June 3, 2014; and (d) the Defendant paid KRW 40,574,964 to the Plaintiff on the construction cost, such as remitting KRW 20,00,00,000, respectively, by means of either dispute between the parties or by means of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and evidence Nos. 4-2 and 3-3.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the instant construction and completed the said construction. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid construction cost to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant, by being awarded a contract with Hongsung-gun, subcontracted the Filie Forest Construction Co., Ltd., and the Filie Forest Construction Co., Ltd re-subcontracted the instant construction to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant, not the contracting parties, did not have the obligation to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant, as seen earlier, remitted KRW 40,00,00 to the Plaintiff as the construction cost of the instant construction project. According to the evidence and evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice claiming KRW 72,574,964 (the supply price of KRW 65,97,240, the tax amount of KRW 65,977,240, and the tax amount of KRW 6,597,724) on January 5, 2014. The Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return with the Defendant on July 25, 2014. The Defendant received a detailed statement of purchase data (Evidence No. 3-1) from an enzy Construction Corporation (the above purchase data) from the Defendant, which is separate from the “EM Construction Corporation” and the “EM Corporation.”