beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the facts of recognition is as follows: (a) the third party of the judgment of the court of first instance (“S&C”) shall dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on October 29, 2013 on the ground that L&C cannot be deemed a party to the instant goods supply contract; and (b) other than adding “S&C” as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the same Act, since the third party of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against L&C for the payment of the instant goods. However, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 29, 2013 on the ground that L&C cannot be deemed a party to the instant goods supply contract.”
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, who is the party to the contract for the supply of the goods of this case, is obligated to pay the price for the goods unpaid to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and even if LV used the tax invoice issued by the plaintiff in the name of LV as purchase data, it seems to be for the convenience of tax treatment. Thus, the result of the order issued by the director of the budget office to submit tax information on the budget of this court is insufficient
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 34,107,72 (i.e., KRW 18,860,633 Won 15,247,089) and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 20 per annum under the Civil Act from July 1, 2012 to February 24, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, which is the delivery date of the instant goods under the instant goods supply contract.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, even if the Defendant is a party to the instant goods supply contract, the Defendant renounced the construction work and completed it at the construction site around April 2012.