(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.06.27 2018가단14963

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.06.27 2018가단14963

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 27, 2017, the Plaintiff (mutual C) entered into a contract with the Defendant and the sales agent D (hereinafter “D”) to accept a subcontract for the model and office interior works of the E main multi-use officetel (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. In the contents of the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D set the construction period from June 27, 2017 to “20 days from the date of completion of CG crops after the completion of the construction work,” and the total contract amount to “19.5 million won (excluding value-added tax), and the intermediate payment and remainder as down payment shall be determined in consultation with the seller, and the contract special conditions (Article 22) set forth as “the Defendant and the Plaintiff separately enter into a contract after completion and issue a tax invoice.”

C. Around July 2017, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work, and the Defendant, via D, paid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff via D from July 7, 2017 to August 14, 2017, and around January 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff from a trust company as the construction price, and returned KRW 15 million first received by the Plaintiff to D.

Around January 2018, the Defendant re-executions the interior work of the above model lower license through F, and paid KRW 63,600,000 as the construction cost.

E. On January 9, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice in the amount of KRW 165 million (the supply price of KRW 15 million and value-added tax of KRW 15 million) to the Defendant as the product model cost and the total amount of KRW 165 million (the supply price of KRW 15 million).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Plaintiff’s purchase and supply of the instant construction project and completion of the model housing construction project, the Defendant paid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 195 million under the instant construction contract, despite the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff.

(a) .

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2019.09.05 2018가단122857

-서울동부지방법원 2020.07.24 2019나26122

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.06.27 2017가단18067

-서울서부지방법원 2018.10.05 2018가단220652

-서울남부지방법원 2014.04.17 2013고단3624