2011Da25251 Construction Costs

Hyo

Seoul

Seoul Place of Service

Stock Company

Seoul

Ha Chief Director 1

Attorney omitted

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Na43886 Decided February 17, 2011

July 14, 2011

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any counter-proof, and shall not reject it without any reasonable explanation. However, where there is a counter-proof or there is a reasonable ground to deem the content of the document as contrary to the objective truth, its probative value may be rejected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da57117, Feb. 8, 1994; 2006Da27055, Sept. 14, 2006).

As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the contract price of this case was agreed at KRW 50,380,00 based on the written estimate No. 2, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare a written contract for construction work at the price of the first quotation; and (b) there was no data suggesting that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare the written contract at the price of the first quotation; (c) there was a significant difference between the Defendant’s assertion amount of KRW 34,362,179 and the written evidence No. 5 and 6 alone were insufficient to recognize that the instant contract was prepared for tax declaration or that the Defendant separately paid the amount equivalent to the amount of the instant contract to the Plaintiff; and (d) the Defendant filed a revised return of value-added tax due to the Plaintiff’s demand for the construction work under the instant written contract, and thus, (e) the Defendant reported the construction work price to the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the construction price to KRW 500,500.

However, according to the court below's judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the contract of this case was prepared under an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, which makes the date retroactive to the defendant as of February 21, 2008 for the defendant's report of value-added tax, and compared with the second written estimate 1, the number of first page indicating the material size is uniformly increased. In light of the fact that the construction of this case was not expanded after the preparation of the first written estimate 1, the second written estimate 2 seems not to reflect the situation of the actual construction site. In fact, while the size and quantity of the material used for the construction of this case are similar to the material size and quantity of the second written estimate, the material size and quantity in the second written estimate are similar to those of the material size and quantity in the second written estimate, and

6.2. 6.6 million won, total of 13,200,000 won on July 9, 2008, and total of 13,200,000 won, and the defendant paid 50,380,000 won (value of supply 45,800,000, tax amount of 4,580,000), which was received from the plaintiff as of March 30, 208, based on the tax invoice of the amount of 50,380 won (value of supply 45,80,000, tax amount of 4,580,000) which was deducted from the input tax amount, but around February 2, 2009, revised the construction price of this case to 13,20,000 won (value of supply 12,00,000 won, tax amount of 1,200,000 won on the contract of this case to 300,0000,000 construction price under the contract of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the probative value of the disposition document, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Park Si-hwan

Justices Cha Han-sung

Justices Park Byung-hee