(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.10 2016나2038786

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.10 2016나2038786

사용료

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this court concerning this part of the basic facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 2, No. 11, No. 11, No. 3, and No. 4), and therefore, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. 1) The plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case was concluded with the defendant through the co-defendant C of the first instance trial. 2) The defendant asserts that the above contract of this case was concluded with the defendant, and the defendant merely transferred the investment money to the plaintiff's account after being recommended to make an investment in the Macheon City G business (hereinafter "the business of this case"). It did not conclude the contract of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and the lease contract of this case was forged by the defendant C.

B. Determination 1) The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 10, 14, and 20 (including virtual numbers). ① After having obtained a business registration certificate from the defendant by facsimile at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for expropriation on the basis of the amount of KRW 17,050,00,000 paid for the Offset term rent of KRW 17,050,000, which was paid by the defendant.

In other words, the defendant was aware that a tax invoice on the off-line user fee is issued to the person who is supplied with the defendant.

If the Defendant requested the issuance of a tax invoice for accounting of investment funds, there is no reason to obtain the tax invoice from the Plaintiff, not the other party to the investment.

(2) 2) K (L company from October 7, 2014 to October 16, 2014) supplied the Defendant with Kenya, etc. with respect to the catulation, and issued a tax invoice and a transaction statement to the Defendant.

③ Under the instant lease agreement, the Defendant shall be at the instant project site.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.11.30 2016고단5447

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2019.02.14 2018고단2989

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2019.06.13 2019고단159

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.02 2013고단8539

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.13 2013고정4722