logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.04.28 2013가단24003
매매대금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 9,500,000 as well as 20% per annum from February 13, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is engaged in plastic manufacturing using the withdrawal machine in the trade name of "C", and the defendant is engaged in plastic manufacturing using the withdrawal machine in the trade name of "D."

On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant one set of KRW 8,500 ton of KRW 8,500 (hereinafter “instant launch period”) in the purchase price of KRW 91,50,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the remainder was paid by the Defendant as a loan secured by the instant launch machine from DBF Capital Co., Ltd.

In addition, in order to increase the remainder of loans extended by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set up a separate sales contract that raises the purchase price of KRW 95 million and agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of value-added tax refunded to the Plaintiff instead of issuing a tax invoice according to this agreement.

On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 6 million from the Defendant, and upon the Defendant’s application for a loan under the said separate sales contract, the Plaintiff received KRW 85,500,000 from the DNA Capital Co., Ltd. on September 27, 2012. At that time, the Plaintiff handed over the instant shooting machine to the Defendant.

Since then, the Defendant was refunded value-added tax amounting to KRW 9.5 million from the competent tax office.

[Grounds for recognition] According to the above-mentioned facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the grounds for the claim for judgment, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff value-added tax amounting to KRW 9.5 million pursuant to the contract for refund of value-added tax.

The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff can not respond to the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff was liable for damages caused by the illegal act since the plaintiff was responsible for the damages caused by the illegal act.

The parties are not in dispute, or are in dispute.

arrow