logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.01.16 2018나2912
물품대금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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 March 6, 2017, the Defendant concluded a contract for construction works with respect to the construction of a building on D-based ground (hereinafter “instant construction works”), which set the construction cost of KRW 220 million (excluding value-added tax) with respect to the construction works to be newly constructed on D-based (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

B. The Plaintiff, under the trade name “E”, runs a paint wholesale business, etc., and completed the construction by entering into a subcontract with C for the part of the paint construction work in the instant case.

C. The Plaintiff’s KRW 10 million to the Defendant on May 11, 2017;

5.31.9 million won;

6. On May 17, 2017, the Defendant issued each tax invoice of KRW 9350,000 (including each value-added tax), and paid KRW 1 million to the Plaintiff.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant directly purchased goods worth KRW 9.35 million from the Plaintiff, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to accept the claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. (1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is liable for the payment of the subcontract price and the delay damages therefrom, on June 30, 2017, since the Plaintiff agreed that the Defendant would pay the subcontract price in lieu of C if the tax invoice is issued, and issued a tax invoice of KRW 9350,000 on June 30, 2017.

(2) The Defendant’s judgment from March 2017, C and the Haman on March 2017

5. The fact that, in lieu of the payment of the instant construction cost, a portion of the subcontract price shall be paid directly to the subcontractors, and the tax invoice was agreed to be issued in the future by the Defendant, not C, and accordingly, that the Plaintiff paid KRW 11 million out of the subcontract price to the Plaintiff on May 17, 2017 is not a dispute between the parties.

However, the plaintiff submitted to the first instance court and this court.

arrow