logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.16 2017노3635
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) as to the construction cost under the construction contract concluded between the defendant and the victim includes value added taxes. Thus, the amount that the defendant paid to the victim as value added taxes must be naturally deducted from the above construction cost, and there is no obligation to notify the victim of the fact that the defendant reported value added taxes. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant deceivings the victim, and there is no intention to defraud the

In addition, on February 10, 2015, the victim exempted the obligation through the agreement.

Even if the victim can cancel it on the ground of mistake, etc., the victim made a final and conclusive act of disposal extinguishing or exempting the obligation, or the defendant has gained a conclusive pecuniary profit.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court and the trial court as to whether the construction cost includes the value added, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) On June 11, 2013, the Defendant contracted the victim with the construction of a new urban-type residential building on the 6th floor area above the 139 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”). 2) Of the above buildings, the part of the housing of the 3-6th floor among the above buildings is added-value-free. The standard construction contract between the Defendant and the victim is indicated as the supply price of KRW 494 million (hereinafter “the instant construction contract price”). The value-added tax column is the public column.

3) The victim entered into a contract for construction by lending the name of another company because he/she did not have the legal qualification to construct urban-type residential housing. In the process, the contractor entered into a contract prepared by Shin comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. as well as the contract amount of KRW 494 million.

arrow