logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.09.19 2019가단504299
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff, from October 2015 to July 2016, processed and supplied the net C with 197,835,000 won of Aluminium and parts of the residual components, etc., and received total of KRW 80,350,000 from C to August 5, 2016.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was supplied with contractual processing and goods equivalent to KRW 89,199,000 in total from March 2016 to February 2018, and paid KRW 67,594,000 in total from December 7, 2016 to March 30, 2018. The Plaintiff was liable for the payment of KRW 21,605,00 in total to C, while receiving an additional payment of KRW 3,780,00 in total from C.

C A. On December 19, 2018, the Defendant died. Since the Defendant is the only statutory inheritor of C, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 92,100,000 (=197,835,000) - 80,350,000 - 21,605,000 - 3,780,000) and damages for delay.

Judgment

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, between October 2, 2015 and July 31, 2016, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff issued the tax invoice as claimed by the plaintiff as the person who is supplied with C.

However, in light of the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act, where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer issues a fixed tax invoice to the person who receives goods or services, the tax invoice is not prepared to prove the past fact that the entrepreneur supplied goods or services to the person who received the goods or services as prescribed by the Value-Added Tax Act, and it does not directly prove the existence or absence of the current legal relationship between the parties by using the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714, Dec. 14, 2001); and (i) the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, namely, the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods equivalent to KRW 17,485,00 (i.e., 197, 835,000; - 80,350,000 won) around December 2016.

arrow