beta
Text
1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed;
2...
Reasons
1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to exist;
A. The defendant is a person who engages in construction machinery leasing business under the trade name of "C (after modification: D)", and E is a person who engages in construction business under the trade name of "F".
B. On January 27, 2015, the construction price was paid KRW 24,200,000 to E, who had been subcontracted with the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government G construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the construction company for the instant construction (hereinafter “Scaus Construction”) at the same construction site, from September 1, 2014 to September 18, 2014.
C. On January 28, 2015, E issued a tax invoice by the Defendant and re-transfer the amount of KRW 10,681,000 (the amount calculated by adding value-added tax 10% to KRW 9,710,00) out of the above KRW 24,20,00,00 to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff, as a participant in the execution of the instant construction, was sub-subcontracted in the amount of KRW 24,200,00 from the Dada Construction, and completed the construction at the construction site cost borrowed from E. However, the Plaintiff was unable to issue a tax invoice under the Plaintiff’s name due to credit problems, and the Dada Construction paid the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 24,200,00 for the construction cost. Since the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff and had the Defendant receive KRW 9,710,00 (the amount calculated by deducting KRW 14,49,00 for E’s equipment rental fee from KRW 24,20,000 (the above 24,200,000) and the Defendant did not receive KRW 9,710,000,000 from the Dada Construction on the basis of the Defendant’s business agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not receive the construction cost directly between the 204,200.