(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.02.16 2016나5102 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2017.02.16 2016나5102

용역비

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 2012, the Defendant completed the ownership transfer registration for C dump trucks (hereinafter “C dump trucks”), and completed the registration of transfer of ownership for a lending company with limited liability companies on the same day, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership to D on February 27, 2014.

B. On January 17, 2014, the Defendant completed new registration of E dump trucks (hereinafter “E dump trucks”).

C. The Plaintiff engaged in mid-term repair, etc. with the trade name “F” was repairing a dump truck owned by the Defendant, including the dump trucks from around 201 to around 2014.

On December 20, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with the supply value of KRW 2,950,000, and value-added tax amount of KRW 295,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant was entitled to deduct the input tax amount of KRW 295,00 based on this tax invoice.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 6 evidence, Eul 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The facts of recognition 1) The remainder of the repair cost that the Plaintiff had not received from the Defendant after repairing the Defendant’s dump trucks is KRW 5,802,800 in total as shown in the following table, and the reasons for recognition of the disputed part are as follows. The repair cost for February 2012 is as follows: 1,60,000 won A4, and 1: the vehicle number is different from the Cump truck number owned by the Defendant at the time when the vehicle number is indicated as “G”. However, the evidence Nos. 4 and 7 (each transaction account book) states that the above repair cost is different from the Cump truck number owned by the Defendant at the time. However, the fact that the Plaintiff installed Aump truck, and the Plaintiff’s price was 80,000,000 won in total, and the details of the installation of Aum truck among the particulars requested by the Plaintiff are only for February 20, 2012, and it appears that it is included in the repair work schedule No. 20.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2020.06.24 2019가단27031

-광주지방법원해남지원 2015.11.05 2014가단20865

-춘천지방법원 2021.02.09 2020구합51127

-창원지방법원진주지원 2014.09.03 2014가단4060

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.09.06 2016나391