logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.09.10 2019가단25253
손해배상
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On January 2, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for interior works with the Defendants on the driving range of the Plaintiff’s operation (hereinafter “instant contract”). As delineated below, the Plaintiff sought a total amount of KRW 90,000,000 for damages against the Defendants.

① The Defendants, based on the instant contract, should file a tax return so that value-added tax can be refunded by issuing a tax invoice to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendants failed to do so, thereby causing damage equivalent to value-added tax amounting to KRW 20,800,000.

② The Plaintiff spent KRW 55,00,000 at the cost of defect repair due to the defect in the Defendants’ work. The Defendants shall compensate the Plaintiff for the damages in lieu of defect repair.

③ The Defendants’ aforementioned defective construction works cause damages to the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s failure to properly conduct their business, and shall compensate for KRW 45,000,000 for business losses for two and eight years.

④ The sum of the damages in the above ① to ③ is KRW 120,800,000, and the Plaintiff claimed KRW 90,000 among them.

2. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff suffered losses due to the Defendant’s failure to issue the tax invoice, defective construction works, etc., and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 1, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the construction cost under the instant contract (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2017da117399), and the conciliation procedure (Seoul East East Eastern District Court 2017Ma12102) was conducted on November 20, 2017, and there is no circumstance in which the Plaintiff’s assertion was discussed in the said procedure.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow