beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The party's assertion
A. As between December 2012 and March 2013, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff leased construction equipment, etc. from the Plaintiff, and the rental fee is KRW 35,541,00 (including value-added tax). Since the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 16,50,00 (including value-added tax) around April 2013, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the rental fee of KRW 19,041,00 (=35,541,000 - 16,50,000) and the delay damages from the date following the delivery of the authentic copy of the instant payment order.
B. The Defendant asserted that the construction equipment, etc. was leased from the Plaintiff during the period from December 2012 to March 2013, 2013, but the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 16,50,000 (including value-added tax). As such, there is no additional loan obligation to the Plaintiff.
2. On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff engaged in a construction machinery rental business with the trade name of judgment B issued a tax invoice for KRW 16,50,00 (including value-added tax) for the equipment rental fee of KRW 16,50,00 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant. The fact that the Defendant paid KRW 16,50,000 to the Plaintiff around that time does not dispute between the parties or that the Defendant paid KRW 16,50,00 to the Plaintiff is recognized by
However, in light of the fact that evidence Nos. 1 and 2-3-1 through 4 of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and 3-1 and 3-4 of evidence Nos. 2 are not the Plaintiff but the lessor is not the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to view that the Defendant leased equipment equivalent to KRW 19,041,00 from the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, on the sole basis of each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, 3, and 3-1 through 4 of evidence Nos. 3-4.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.
It is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance that the conclusion different from this conclusion is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition.