beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) concluded a soil and sand transport contract with the Defendant on May 2015; and (b) up to June 2015, the Plaintiff transported earth and sand to the construction site of the Incheon Western Seo-dong Cheongdong, Seo-gu, Incheon.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the balance of 4,583,500 won [(6.6. 90,000 won x 55,000 won x 3.5,000 won x 5,000 won x 148 times x 60,000 won x 55,00 won x 4,000 won x 60,000 won x 60,000 won x 8 times x 8 times) paid by the defendant and 2,959,000 won for earth and sand transport and 2,935,000 won for truck use and 2,935,500 won for truck use and 2,935,500 won for the defendant respectively] x value-added tax 1.1.
2. Determination
A. On June 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the transportation charge per truck of earth and sand was KRW 90,000, and the Defendant claimed that the transportation charge per truck was KRW 85,000.
It is not enough to recognize that transportation charges per truck were KRW 90,000 only with the descriptions of subparagraphs 1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the truck per 85,000 won per truck on May 2015, 2015, and the Defendant agreed to transport 90,000 won per truck with the two public-managed corporation and the Defendant subcontracted this to the Plaintiff, it appears that the truck per truck was 85,000 won recognized by the Defendant.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that there remain remaining outstanding amounts equivalent to KRW 1,205,00 (55,000 x 3 times x 5,000 x 148) out of the soil and sand transport charges on May 2015. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff voluntarily recognized that the soil and sand transport charges were fully paid on May 3, 2015 (the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief dated May 3, 2016), the evidence alone, which alone was insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant: (i) KRW 120,000,00 (=60,000 x twice) transporting recyclables as of June 18, 2015; and (ii) KRW 220,00,000 =5.