beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. Although the Plaintiff C (hereinafter “C”) supplied the Defendant with a 480,00 chips on September 5, 2013, and supplied the Defendant with a number of 1 million chips on October 28, 2013 (a total of 97,680,000 won) or each of the above goods to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), the Defendant acquired the status of the contractual party related thereto (in light of the process of issuing a new tax invoice after cancelling the tax invoice for D Co., Ltd. and changing the recipient to the Defendant), the Defendant is obligated to pay the price of each of the above goods to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff acquired the goods price claim from C, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 97,680,00 and delay damages therefrom.
B. The Plaintiff did not provide the Defendant with LE chips, and the tax invoice is issued again with the Defendant supplied with the Defendant’s representative director only for allowing the Defendant to obtain input tax deduction at the request of E, which was the Defendant’s representative director, and cannot be deemed to have taken over the status of the Defendant supplied with the supply contract.
2. First of all, as to whether C supplied goods to the Defendant, there exists a basic transaction contract between C and D, and ② in relation to the instant transaction, C issued an electronic tax invoice with the original supplier of D. However, the instant transaction appears to be a kind of performance under the said basic transaction contract; ③ The Plaintiff’s assertion that C supplied the goods is a party to the supply of the goods is without merit, in light of the following: (a) F, the representative director of C, who is the D’s representative director, filed a complaint against G, etc., which is not properly paid the price for the goods, including the instant transaction price; and (b) G is currently under a judgment for fraud; and (c) the other party who supplied the goods is a party to the supply of the goods.
This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the statement in preparatory documents on October 22, 2015.