logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.04.26 2016가단124307
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around 2014, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice to the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff’s recipient; (b) the Defendant’s supplier of the ES industry designated by the Defendant; and (c) requested that all the issues arising therefrom be borne by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice from the Defendant and paid KRW 33,400,000, which is 10% of the value of supply to the Defendant as value-added tax.

The Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return at the tax office with false tax invoices issued by the Defendant as evidentiary materials, but filed a revised tax return of KRW 29,459,400 for the first period of January 2014 and KRW 22,864,050 for the second period of February 2014, and paid voluntarily.

In addition, the locked Tax Department notified the plaintiff of the unpaid amount, and the 11,309,400 won for the first term portion in 2014, and 25,310,630 won for the second term portion in 2014.

In addition, on June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 5,00,000 as a result of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the Seoul Eastern District Court on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

As a result, 127,343,480 won (=3,40,000 won 22,864,050 won) 11,309,400 won 25,310,630 won (25,310,630 won 5,00,000 won) incurred by the Plaintiff upon his request by the Defendant. Of them, the Defendant only 13,000 won and paid 114,343,480 won (=127,343,480 won - 13,000 won) remains.

Therefore, the defendant should pay the above 114,343,480 won as agreed money or damages, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of February 22, 2018.

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant suffered damages by receiving a false tax invoice from the Defendant only by the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.

arrow