logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.08.16 2017가단16234
용역비
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,396,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from August 24, 2017 to August 16, 2018, and the following.

Reasons

1. The following facts are recognized as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the evidence set forth in Items A(1) to 12 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

A. From February 16, 2017 to June 2017, the Plaintiff supplied human resources at the site of Geumho Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ulsan Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd.”). (b) The Plaintiff consulted with the Defendant regarding the supply of human resources at the site of the instant construction, and issued the following electronic tax invoices by designating the supplier as the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the Defendant. ① Electronic tax invoices, the supply price of which as of March 15, 2017 is KRW 13,760,000, the supply price of which as of April 14, 2017 is KRW 99,390,000, the supply price as of May 16, 2017 is KRW 226,210,000, the supply price as of May 16, 2017; and (c) Electronic tax invoices issued as of June 16, 2017; and (v) Electronic tax invoices issued as of May 37, 207, 2017.

D. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff both the value of supply stated in the above electronic tax invoices (excluding the electronic tax invoices, the issuance of which was revoked) and the amount equivalent to the value of the value of the value thereof.

2. The parties' assertion

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant of the instant construction site, the Defendant paid KRW 72,624,750 to the Plaintiff out of the amount equivalent to the service cost and the value-added tax.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant merely concluded an employment contract with the instant construction site manpower and did not receive any manpower from the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the Defendant supplied the instant construction site manpower from the Plaintiff, the amount equivalent to the service cost and the value-added tax that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff is 4,360,000 won in total, 44,396,000 won in the amount equivalent to the service cost and the value-added tax on June 2017.

3...

arrow