logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.07.12 2017나6274
공사대금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) is a company mainly engaged in windows, steel products construction business, etc., and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Company”) is a company mainly engaged in general building business, indoor building business, landscaping business, etc.

B. The Plaintiff Company, upon receiving a subcontract for construction works from the Defendant Company, issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff Company as indicated in the following Table 1, with the supplier and the Defendant Company supplied.

On June 30, 2015, the value-added tax amount of the product on the date of issuance of the No. 14,300,000 issued for the entry of the entry in the tax invoice (as above, the tax invoice No. 1 of the above No. 2) issued on February 4, 2016, referring to the evidence No. 330,000 Eul No. 1-1 of the Dongan on February 4, 2016, referring to the tax invoice No. 14,30,000 issued on February 4, 2016, which is different from the approved number (as referred to in subparagraph 2-1 of the above tax invoice No. 1 of the same subparagraph) and is written to be reissued by correcting any error in the entry (as evidence No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1, No. 2 of the evidence No. 2 of the evidence No. 2 of the same subparagraph). 80,630,00

C. With respect to the above subcontracted projects, the Defendant Company has paid the construction price to the Plaintiff Company as described in the following Table 2:

On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff’s payment amount of the Plaintiff (won) on the date of transfer includes evidence Nos. 5,000,000 bits construction work at the Livestock Cooperative on April 24, 2015, see evidence No. 1-1, e.g., evidence No. 25,000 bits construction work on June 10, 2015, see evidence No. 1-25, 30,000 bits construction work cost on July 30, 3015, see evidence No. 1-30, 40,000 bits construction cost on July 30, 2015; 200 bits construction cost on August 6, 2015; 30,00 bits construction cost on May 26, 200 bits construction cost on July 30, 2015; 20 bits No. 360. 1, 206360

2. The plaintiff company's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is defendant.

arrow