(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.06.12 2018가단114716

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) 의정부지방법원 2019.06.12 2018가단114716

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

A. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff prepared the instant deposit slip to D in the same purport, even if he received only KRW 12180,000 on the day.

* When the Plaintiff supplies goods to the Defendant, it shall prepare a detailed statement of transaction and, on the basis thereof, prepare a tax invoice and a commissioner of transaction.

However, there were cases where there was a difference between the actual supply quantity and the trading list, such as the difference in the quantity of cruel goods in the trading list, or the entry of the supplied goods into the supplied goods.

In such a case, the plaintiff confirmed the contact with the defendant and issued a revised tax invoice to the revised contents, and there seems to have been any omission.

In addition, the plaintiff purchased goods from the defendant. In this case, the plaintiff should pay the price for the goods or offset the price for the goods against the defendant, but it seems that there was an omission.

* As of the end of 2014, the total amount of the tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff was more than KRW 50,60,000 than the total amount of the actual goods supplied to the Defendant.

* On March 5, 2015, Defendant Company D, who was in charge of accounting affairs with the Plaintiff, attempted to settle the price of goods with the Plaintiff. At the time, Defendant Company D decided to preferentially settle the amount of KRW 62,783,897, which is the difference between the Plaintiff’s tax invoice issued and the amount of goods supplied by the Defendant under the Customer Director at the time.

However, considering the value-added tax, etc. paid by the Plaintiff, D was first paid KRW 1,2180,000,000, and subsequently, in the event that the Plaintiff’s issuance of the tax invoice is confirmed to be correct in accordance with the transaction specifications, transaction account books, etc. of the Defendant’s side as the Plaintiff found the transaction specifications, etc., D written and e-mail of this case to the effect that the difference between the above KRW 1,218,00 and the above KRW 62,783

2. However, there is no difference between the two.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2014.10.22 2013가단33194

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.12 2019노386

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.10.25 2018가단21480

-서울고등법원 2010. 01. 19. 선고 2009누12282 판결

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.11.01 2018가단110552