임가공대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Under the trade name of C, the Plaintiff is a person who conducts gold and withdrawal business, and the Defendant is a person who conducts withdrawal business with the trade name of D.
E is a person who borrows the defendant's business name (D) from the defendant.
During the period from October 4, 2016 to February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) drafted a trading list of KRW 33.3 million in total with D as an addressee; (b) and (c) signed the trading list of KRW 33.3 million (Evidence A; hereinafter referred to as “instant trading list”); and (d) E, not the Defendant, signed the transaction list in the column for underwriters of the said trading list.
On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice (Evidence A 2; hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) of KRW 19,80,000,000 as the person to whom the Defendant was supplied, but the Defendant refused to grant its approval.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, witness E's testimony, and purport of whole pleading
2. Whether the Defendant is liable to pay the processing price as a transaction party, the Plaintiff sought payment of the amount stated in the purport of the claim, stating that the Defendant did not pay value-added tax of KRW 1.8 million out of the amount of the instant tax invoice of KRW 33.3 million (the value of the instant tax invoice of KRW 18,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won) with
However, in full view of the witness E’s testimony and the purport of the entire argument, it is recognized that the transaction of this case’s transaction statement and tax invoice is a discretionary processing transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, not a discretionary processing transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff, whether the defendant is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, asserts that the defendant is liable for the payment of the amount claimed to the plaintiff as the nominal lender, since the defendant lent the name to E, and the plaintiff was aware that the defendant was a party to the transaction.
As to this, the defendant is the plaintiff.