beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. Part of the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Reasons
The reason why the court should explain this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the judgment of the defendant on the following defendant's argument, and therefore it is citing this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion is different from the specifications of ready-mixed, which the Plaintiff asserted to have supplied 25-21-120, and the Corporation of this case was suspended on February 6, 2015 and had not been supplied from that time, and according to the transaction card (Evidence No. 6), the Plaintiff’s supply on January 10, 2015 is indicated as “J purchase” and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff supplied 434, while the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied 434,000, based on the floor area at the construction site of this case, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff supplied 170,000,000, as it was stated as “J purchase” on the side of 11,03,000,000 won. However, it is only 170,000,000 if the construction site of this case is calculated, and it cannot be said that the Plaintiff supplied 434,434, etc. to the Defendant.
Judgment
The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 6, and Eul evidence No. 6, i.e., the total amount of tax invoices issued by the plaintiff to the defendant relating to the instant construction project (=the total amount of tax invoices issued by the plaintiff to the defendant is KRW 27,969,480,000 on December 31, 2014 (=the total amount of tax invoices issued by the plaintiff to the defendant is KRW 6,19,60,600 on January 12, 2015; KRW 9,568,680 on May 21, 2015); ② the statement and transaction card of the head of ready-mixed and the plaintiff are identical to the total amount of the supplied ready-mixed supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant from December 4, 2014 to February 24, 2015.