logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.09.23 2015나8221
사용료
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, with the trade name of “B”, placed equipment at the construction site of the construction site of C 1 and 2 construction site of C Da 1 and 2, which the Defendant was awarded a subcontract from the treatment construction construction company, with the equipment at the construction site of the waste water treatment facilities and the foundation construction of sea water desalination facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice (No. 8; hereinafter “the first tax invoice”) equivalent to KRW 10,340,000 of the value of supply on November 20, 2013, and issued a tax invoice of KRW 10,340,000 of the value of supply on December 20, 2013 (the evidence No. 1; hereinafter “the second tax invoice”) and drafted a transaction list (Evidence No. 4).

C. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for direct payment (Evidence A 10) to the Defendant. On February 14, 2014, the Plaintiff directly received KRW 10,340,000 from the Defendant for the fee for the use of equipment stated in the first tax invoice.

On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff revoked the issuance of the second tax invoice. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice (a evidence No. 3; hereinafter “third tax invoice”) on May 31, 2014, by deeming the instant construction to be supplied by the Defendant E (operator and Co-Defendant F) as the supply price of the instant construction to be re-subcontracted by the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and its judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion at the Defendant’s request, supplied equipment between September 26, 2013 and October 29 of the same year at the instant construction site. However, the Plaintiff received KRW 10,340,000 from the Defendant and did not receive KRW 10,340,00 on the fee for the use of equipment specified in the first tax invoice. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 10,340,000 and damages for delay.

(b) judgment;

arrow