logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.06.24 2015가단47045
대납금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

According to Gap's records, the plaintiff transferred 69,685,000 won (i.e., KRW 27,874,000) in total to the account of the Design D&C Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "SP") on November 12, 2010 (= KRW 41,81,000).

The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the cause of the instant claim is the cause of the instant claim, and the Defendant was provided with an aggregate of KRW 69,685,000 for play facilities to be installed in the B P P P P P PP on April 1, 2010 and May 18, 2010, and thus, the Nonparty Company was obligated to pay KRW 69,685,00 to the Nonparty Company. However, upon the Defendant’s request by C, the Plaintiff paid KRW 69,685,00 to the Nonparty Company on November 12, 2010 on the ground that the Plaintiff paid KRW 69,685,00 for the above play facilities to the Nonparty Company instead of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above indemnity amount of KRW 69,685,00.

According to the records, Gap 3 and 4, the non-party company: (a) as of April 1, 2010; (b) as of the supply and supply value of play facilities: 2,534,00 won; (c) value-added tax: 2,534,00 won; (d) tax invoice for credit amount: 27,874,000 won; (b) tax invoice for credit amount as of May 18, 2010; and (c) the defendant, item: 38,010,000 won; and value-added tax for credit amount: 3.81,000 won; and (c) tax invoice for credit amount: 41,31,000 won.

However, a tax invoice is a document prepared by an entrepreneur prescribed in the Value-Added Tax Act for the purpose of proving the past fact of supplying goods or services to the person receiving the goods or services (Article 32(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act); where an entrepreneur misleads the entrepreneur, the entrepreneur may file a revised return (Article 32(7) of the Value-Added Tax Act); and the Defendant’s side did not dispute that the aforementioned transaction had been conducted with the Nonparty Company. However, the Plaintiff, other than the said tax invoice, details of the above transaction, such as the sports facility supply contract and input tax deduction data

arrow