beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. From November 19, 2014 to December 20, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the original group to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff created a total of KRW 21,855,090 (including value-added tax)’s claim for the purchase of goods. The Defendant repaid KRW 5,968,90 to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remaining amount of KRW 15,886,190 (=21,855,090) to the Plaintiff KRW 5,968,90).
B. The parties to a transaction to which the Defendant’s assertion was supplied with goods from the Plaintiff are not the Defendant, but C. Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant did not receive the original group from the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice for KRW 2,165,790 (including value-added tax) from the Plaintiff through C on December 31, 2014.
2. Determination
A. As to who is an actor or title holder, in cases where an actor who executes a contract was engaged in a juristic act in the name of another person, the contracting party shall first determine the offender or title holder as the party to the contract in accordance with the consent of the actor, if the actor and the other party agree with each other. If the intent of the actor and the other party are inconsistent, then if the other party does not coincide with each other, the contracting party shall determine, in accordance with what way the actor and title holder understand as the party to the contract, in accordance with the specific circumstances before
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44059, Dec. 12, 2003)
There is no dispute between the parties, or the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, which are the following facts and circumstances, i.e., a person who engages in the wholesale and retail business of the original form with the trade name "D," and the defendant is a person who engages in the Internet sales business with the trade name "E," and ii) the plaintiff is a person who supplies goods, with the copy of the business registration certificate obtained from the defendant on December 31, 2014.