(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.04.14 2016나2046435

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) 서울고등법원 2017.04.14 2016나2046435

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases:

2. Parts to be used or added or supplementally determined;

A. Of the judgment of the first instance, the expression “this Court” is collectively changed to the first instance court.

B. The 3,960,000 won in the fourth 13th 13th son of the judgment of the first instance shall be applied mutatis mutandis.

C. From 6th to 19th of the fifth judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

1) In light of the following facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the response of each order to submit documents to the director of the Gyeonggi Mine District Tax Office to the director of the Gyeonggi District Tax Office, it is reasonable to deem that the construction cost of the Civil Works in this case was agreed to KRW 500,000,000, including value-added tax, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the items of evidence Nos. 1, 8, and 11 are not included in the above construction cost and the value-added tax was agreed to be separately paid by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this.

① Although the non-party company and the Defendant concluded the instant civil construction contract, they did not explicitly agree on the burden of value-added tax, despite the special agreement that “the contractor bears the burden of premium, wage bond, employment insurance and safety management expenses.”

② On May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company concluded the instant additional subcontract on August 26, 2013 and the instant additional subcontract on August 26, 2013, and stipulated that “value-added tax is separate” in the contract, and thus, seems to have been aware that the construction contract is subject to value-added tax.

③ On January 28, 2014, the Defendant’s non-party company

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.03.24 2016나2026370

-서울고등법원 2017.03.31 2016나2081292

-부산고등법원 2017.11.08 2017나32

-서울고등법원 2017.03.31 2016나2054801

-서울고등법원 2017.05.12 2016나2061427