logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2015.08.20 2015가단294
전자어음 할인대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,817,963 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 8, 2014 to August 20, 2015.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff requested the defendant to discount the amount of 96,250,00 won at the face value of the issuance of Bowalian Co., Ltd., and the defendant ordered the above discount, but the defendant first paid 74,00,000 won among them, and then temporarily borrowed 22,250,000 won at a time, and then agreed to return at a later time, the defendant is liable to pay the above difference to the plaintiff.

2. There is no dispute between the parties concerned regarding the fact that the defendant's request for the discount of the above electronic bill was made and then the defendant returned KRW 74,00,000 to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant agreed to return the remainder as a whole.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2, the Plaintiff received an electronic bill at a discount from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, on September 3, 2014, issued an electronic bill at a face value of 96,250,000 (hereinafter “instant bill”), which is the Plaintiff’s issuance of the electronic bill at a face value of 96,250,000 (hereinafter “instant bill”). The Defendant received a discount from a third party on September 4, 2014 and received the remaining discount amount of 92,817,963 won excluding the commission, etc., and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 74,00,00 on the same day.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference of 18,817,963 won (=92,817,963 won - 74,00,000 won) and damages for delay after deducting the money already paid from the discounted payment of the Promissory Notes in this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified partially.

In relation to this, the defendant must issue a tax invoice with the defendant as the supplier, and the plaintiff as the supplier, and shall deduct the fee equivalent to the value-added tax to be paid by the defendant.

arrow