beta
Text
The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a person who operates the events agency, advertising business, etc., and the defendant is a company established for the purpose of indoor construction works, etc.
B. On October 2018, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on September 19, 2018 under which the Defendant would completely subcontract the “D Operation Agency and Facilities Installation Services (hereinafter “instant service”) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”).
C. The Plaintiff provided all services under the instant contract, and issued each of the tax invoices of KRW 210,00,000 ( KRW 136,500,000 on September 21, 2018, KRW 63,500,000 on December 7, 2018, and KRW 10,000 on January 20, 2019) to the Defendant, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Regarding the amount of service price of this case, the plaintiff asserted that 210,000,000 won, which is the aggregate of the tax invoice issued by the plaintiff, was the service price of 210,000,000 won after deducting 10% from the order price of 210,000,000 won received from the original office, and thus, the defendant alleged that the service price of this case was each service price of 189,00,000 won, which can be acknowledged by considering the whole arguments in the above evidences, and the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged as a whole as a whole. In other words, the plaintiff asserts that the burden of proof as to the service price of this case is a requisite fact. The plaintiff failed to submit objective data, such as a contract, agreement, etc. which objectively proves that the service price of this case is 210,000,000 won, and the statement of tax invoice unilaterally issued by the plaintiff can not be presumed to have been established without permission between the original and the defendant as the service price of this case.