beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 13, 2013, the Defendant entered into a construction contract with the Pyeongtaek Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Chang Development”) and the Defendant for the removal of the remaining soil arising from performing construction works related to the Sungsan Pung River (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff was registered as an individual business operator with the trade name B, who served as an employee of the Pyeongtaek Development.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into the instant contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with the content that the Plaintiff would have to enter into an agreement on the development of Pyeongtaek and the instant construction. Accordingly, on April 11, 2014, and April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff carried out cruel land at the construction site of Ulsan-si school.
Meanwhile, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant agreed to pay the construction price directly to the Plaintiff as the subcontractor.
As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 11,201,850 as the construction cost under the above work and the delay damages therefor.
① On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of “the supplier,” “the Defendant supplied,” “the supply price of KRW 10,183,50,” “tax amount of KRW 1,018,350,” and “the total amount of KRW 11,201,850,” respectively.
② On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) carried out the work of transporting residues; (b) claimed construction price of KRW 8,885,250 to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant deposited KRW 8,885,250 on July 16, 2014 into the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff.
B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 7, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of “the supplier,” “the Defendant receiving the supply”, “the supply price of KRW 10,183,50,” “tax amount of KRW 1,018,350,” and “the total amount of KRW 11,201,850” on April 30, 2014.