beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.03.31 2016나4806

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with the following details.

(a) The person who is supplied with the items of defendant (2): 22,80,00 of the strong floor (3): 22,80,000 of the supply value, and 25,168,000 won in total; and

B. The Daelim Industry, Inc., subcontracted 188,00,000 won contract amounting to 188,000,000 won of ridge construction and ridge removal construction on Gangnam e-si apartment, to D (Representative F) and C (Representative F and Defendant) Co., Ltd.

C. The strong floor supplied by the Plaintiff was used in the above apartment construction work, and the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice or prepare a goods supply contract to D or C in addition to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a party to the instant supply contract, and the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 25,168,00,000, which is the outstanding amount.

B. The party supplied under the instant supply contract by the Defendant is not the Defendant but D Co., Ltd.

The defendant issued the tax invoice of this case by requesting the plaintiff to prepare only the tax invoice without the supply contract due to the lack of tax data.

3. Determination

A. The party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the party’s intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da45828, Mar. 19, 2009); the facts acknowledged earlier; and the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings; ① the Plaintiff issued the instant tax invoice only against the Defendant; ② the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice to other company than the Defendant; ② the strong floor supplied by the Plaintiff was used for construction of the floor constructed by the Defendant, a stock company with the representative director, and ③.