beta
Text
1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from September 15, 2018 to June 20, 2019.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the claim for construction cost in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of branch numbers), the plaintiff has been performing construction work upon being awarded a contract from the defendant around March 2016 with the defendant for Dental Works in the Port Site and the Yang-gu Site (hereinafter "each of the instant construction works"), and the plaintiff has been paid KRW 100 million in total from the defendant from March 18, 2016 to June 30, 2016, and the remaining construction cost has been paid KRW 30 million in excess of the defendant, and the remaining construction cost has been settled separately with the defendant. ③ The defendant has agreed with the plaintiff on August 15, 2016 to treat the remaining construction cost as the full payment for the plaintiff's construction cost if the defendant paid KRW 30 million to Eul who finished each of the instant construction works on behalf of the plaintiff, but it is recognized that the defendant has paid the remainder to each E1 million won.
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff failed to receive KRW 18 million out of the remaining construction costs for each of the instant construction works from the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 18 million and the delay damages.
2. Part on claim of value-added tax
A. With respect to each of the instant projects asserted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not receive the total tax amount of KRW 9.1 million from the Defendant on the tax invoice of KRW 51 million, the tax amount of KRW 51 million, the tax amount of KRW 51 million, the tax amount of KRW 51 million, the tax amount of KRW 5.1 million, the tax amount of KRW 44 million, and the tax amount of KRW 4 million, which was issued on November 7, 2016, and KRW 9.1 million, so the Defendant must pay the Plaintiff the total value-added tax of KRW 9.
B. The judgment is based on: ① each of the above tax invoices was issued later by the Plaintiff after receiving the construction cost from the Defendant; ② the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and E in relation to each of the instant construction works exceeds the total amount of value added tax included in the above tax invoices; ③ the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.