logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.12.07 2018나795
유류대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of petroleum, and the Defendant is a person who runs the construction business under the trade name of “B”.

B. Around April 2016, the Defendant contracted for the part of the geothermal Construction among the C Construction at Yangyang-si, and the Plaintiff supplied oil, such as oil oil, sulfur transit, etc. at the construction site.

C. From April 25, 2016 to May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied oil to the above construction site 16 times in total, and the price is KRW 11,697,032.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number for a case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that he supplied oil by concluding an oil supply contract with the defendant, and the defendant asserted that the party who entered into an oil supply contract with the plaintiff is not the defendant but the defendant who subcontracted the heat construction part to the defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned evidence’s overall purport, the following circumstances: (i) the Plaintiff appears to have obtained the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate from the Defendant at the time of supplying oil; (ii) the transaction specification sheet prepared by the Plaintiff stated “B return” to the opposite contractual party; (iii) the opposite contractual party to the transaction specification sheet written by the Plaintiff stated “D company”; (iv) the Plaintiff issued electronic tax invoices with the Defendant or his employee as the recipient; and (v) the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto; and (v) appears to have dealt with the tax-related issues arising from the said electronic tax invoices; and (v) the Plaintiff paid the amount of oil supplied by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff at another construction site and paid the Plaintiff the amount of oil used by the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant paid the amount of oil to the Plaintiff as above at the subcontract price to the Defendant.

arrow