beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,930,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from September 24, 2015 to August 17, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The status of the parties is a corporation with the objective of manufacturing and selling steel structures and steel materials, and the defendant is a corporation with the objective of manufacturing and installing steel structures.
B. On April 6, 2015, the Defendant’s subcontracting and registration certificate borrowing 1) C, D and E are the construction of the steel station among the construction works of the F Police Station contracted by the F Police Station of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Agency (hereinafter “instant construction”).
G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”)
(1) A subcontract between April 6, 2015 and March 31, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”) with the contract amount of KRW 1,075,250,000, and the construction period of KRW 6,000.
2) The actual contractor of the instant subcontract was the Defendant.
However, the Defendant did not obtain a license for assistance necessary for the instant subcontract. Therefore, the Defendant concluded a contract by leasing a registration certificate from G with a certificate of registration of Gangwon Structure Special Construction Business and paid 5% of the construction contract amount to G in return for the name lending.
C. The Plaintiff’s supply of steel products 1) The Defendant supplied steel products necessary for the instant construction from H Co., Ltd. to receive steel products due to the payment of the price. (2) On August 13, 2015 and September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with steel products worth KRW 50,930,000 in total (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).
The Defendant agreed to be supplied with steel materials from the Plaintiff and pay the price immediately upon issuance of the tax invoice.
3) On September 23, 2015, G was issued a tax invoice of KRW 50,930,000 in total for supply value and tax amount of KRW 50,930,00. However, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10,000 out of the price of the instant supply contract, and the remainder of KRW 40,930,000 was not paid. [Grounds for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 26 (including serial numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.