(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.05.23 2017나55374

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.05.23 2017나55374

대여금등

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant’s KRW 12,175,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses on April 7, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator engaged in manufacturing industrial machinery under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a business operator engaged in manufacturing industrial machinery and steel structures, etc. under the trade name of “D.”

B. As of March 20, 2015, as of March 20, 2015, the term of the contract from March 20, 2015 to May 29, 2015 (including the period of completion and trial operation) and the contract amount of KRW 148 million (value added tax) between the Defendant and the A.M. (hereinafter “A.M”), a written contract for construction works that the Defendant would manufacture and supply A.M.M with the equipment for canctor treatment facilities.

C. The Defendant performed only the parts of the above construction contract (the production cost is KRW 9,425,00 according to the appraisal result of appraiser E in the first instance court), and all remainder were supplied to A.M. by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant received the total of KRW 110,3960,000 (including value-added tax) from NAM as the construction price, and paid KRW 10,360,000 among them as value-added tax (the tax invoice was also prepared), and paid KRW 92,50,000,000 out of the remaining KRW 13.6 million to the Plaintiff.

In addition, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant was supplied with the Defendant on June 23, 2015 (the supply price of KRW 75 million, the tax amount of KRW 75 million, and the tax amount of KRW 7.5 million) and the tax invoice on June 27, 2015 (the supply price of KRW 10 million, the tax amount of KRW 1 million), respectively, and the Defendant was refunded value-added tax of KRW 8.5 million (=the purchase tax amount of KRW 7.5 million).

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff remitted each of the Defendant, KRW 1980,00,000,000 to the Defendant on March 30, 2015, and KRW 2 million on May 26, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, 6, 14, and the result of the first instance court's commission of appraisal to appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on claims related to the performance of the A.M. construction contract

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff borrowed the name of the Defendant.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.01.22 2017가단7888

-서울행정법원 2010. 09. 30. 선고 2010구합14923 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.11.03 2016나2041188

-광주지방법원 2020.07.23 2019가단531719

-부산지방법원 2017.08.10 2016구합2312