logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.08 2016가단356222
사용료
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with “E company” F (However, this is a company run in fact by F’s G) located in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, and continued to lend a loan.

B. In issuing a tax invoice for each supplied portion on October 2014, the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice with “E company” F, and then issued the tax invoice with “H company” B (the Defendant, and the G wife) from November 2014 to April 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”) issued in the future by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff received KRW 39,806,000, out of the total supply amount of KRW 46,750,000 (including value-added tax) related to each of the instant tax invoices, but did not receive the remainder of KRW 6,94,00 (hereinafter “instant payment”).

F The F died on June 2015

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap 2, 3, Eul 1, 2, 5, and 10 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant stated as the person who is supplied with each of the tax invoices of this case alleged by the plaintiff, which is the defendant's assumption of the deceased's obligation, so the defendant shall be liable for the unpaid amount.

B. Each of the tax invoices of this case asserted by the Defendant was issued by G as the deceased died and G was supplied to the Defendant upon the Plaintiff’s understanding for convenience, and the Defendant did not intend to accept the deceased’s obligation.

Therefore, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

3. The fact that the name of the recipient of each of the instant tax invoices was the defendant, and the fact that each of the said tax invoices was normally reported is also recognized by the defendant.

However, the following are known or mentioned by each description of evidence Nos. 8 and 13 and by the purport of the whole pleadings.

arrow