beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 27,608,989 as well as to the plaintiff on November 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Upon receiving a contract from each of the above companies for the construction of F-factory buildings (hereinafter “F-building”), the construction of H-factory buildings (hereinafter “H building”) located in G in Hysung City, and the construction of F-type and H-type building (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”), the Defendant subcontracted L with the construction of steel structure of each of the instant buildings after being awarded a contract with each of the above companies.
B. The Defendant, upon L L’s introduction, was practically responsible for the paint work of each building of this case. The subcontract contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, who completed business registration under the trade name of “I” for convenience, such as the issuance of tax invoice (hereinafter “the subcontract of this case”), and the Plaintiff claimed construction cost and received it from the Defendant and distributed it to the actual workers, such as J.
C. The paint work of each of the instant buildings was actually conducted by the Plaintiff workers, including J, etc., including the fireproof work.
On December 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the Defendant, issued a tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) on the aggregate of KRW 52.3 million (i.e., KRW 32 million in value-added tax) and KRW 32 million in value-added tax (excluding value-added tax 3.2 million in value-added tax) and KRW 2.3 million in value-added tax (excluding value-added tax 2.3 million in value-added tax).
E. On May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay the construction cost of KRW 50,230,000,000 and value-added tax of KRW 5.233,00,00,00 as it was performed, but did not receive the payment thereof,” and the Defendant sent it to the Defendant on September 20, 2014, because it did not receive the construction cost from H and F. Therefore, the Defendant was a crime of having failed to pay the construction cost.
However, the details of the actual construction and the amount of the claim are less than the upper.