beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 123,733,50 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from January 17, 2014 to September 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. On November 11, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive a subcontract from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) among “Shoho-gu - Government access road construction works” (hereinafter “instant construction works”). The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a value-added tax rate of 123,73,500 won for the construction cost (=15,000 won per cut-off 1m2 x 7,499m2) and damages incurred therefrom, on December 12, 2013.
B. The defendant's assertion that the construction of this case was subcontracted with the Cheongan Construction, and there was no contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on the condition that the construction of this case was subcontracted.
The construction contract of this case (the evidence No. 3, omitted) is merely a part of the Plaintiff’s arbitrary preparation of Cheongan Construction. Thus, it is not effective.
2. Determination
A. In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a document as to the conclusion of the instant construction contract is the seal affixed to the seal affixed by the name holder, barring any special circumstance, the establishment of the seal imprint shall be presumed to have been made based on the will of the name holder, i.e., the act of sealing is presumed to have been made, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the person who asserts that the document is forged shall prove that the document has been
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029 delivered on February 5, 2002, etc.). So, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant’s seal affixed on the instant construction contract was displayed by the Defendant’s seal, and as long as the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the seal is presumed, and the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been established, pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.