logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
수원지방법원 2017.07.11 2016나77339
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff is a person engaged in the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior design and construction business, and completed the extension and repair work of hospital from the Defendant under a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 260 million (excluding value-added tax) (excluding value-added tax).

B. On April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with the amount of KRW 29 billion (190 million value-added tax amounting to KRW 190 million) as to the said construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to 19 million won equivalent to the value-added tax agreed separately to be paid to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim was extinguished by the agreement on September 30, 2014, and therefore, finish.

According to the statement in Eul evidence 1 (including the provisional serial number), the plaintiff attached the defendant's claim with the claim of KRW 23 million as the preserved claim. On September 30, 2014, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the provisional attachment application of KRW 15 million under the name of "the balance of the construction price and the amount of compensation for damages" and the plaintiff and the defendant shall withdraw the application for the provisional attachment, and the plaintiff and the defendant shall confirm that all the matters have been terminated by promising not to raise any objection after the delay. The defendant can recognize the fact that they paid KRW 15 million according to the agreement of this case, and the agreement to pay the amount of value-added tax is only an incidental agreement to the construction contract, and the agreement of this case does not contain any explicit content that the value-added tax is not included in the subject of the agreement of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim equivalent to value-added tax is extinguished by the agreement of this case.

arrow