beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 112,351,426 to the Plaintiff; and (b) from December 1, 2015 to March 1, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of steel wholesale business, and the defendant is a corporation with the purpose of manufacturing and installing steel structures.
B. Around April 6, 2015, D Co., Ltd., E Co., Ltd., and F Co., Ltd. entered into a subcontract with H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) regarding the contract amount of KRW 1,075,250,00, and the construction period from April 6, 2015 to March 31, 2017, with respect to the steel frame (hereinafter “instant construction”).
(hereinafter referred to as “instant subcontract”). (c)
The actual contractor of the instant subcontract was the Defendant, and the Defendant did not obtain a license to take measures necessary for the instant subcontract. As such, the Defendant concluded a contract by leasing a registration certificate from H with a certificate of registration of a specialized construction business and paid 5% of the construction contract amount in return for the name transfer to H.
From October 7, 2015 to November 11, 2015, the Defendant supplied the steel materials necessary for the instant construction from K Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff’s supply of steel materials 147,943kg and C Steel 1,251kg (hereinafter “the instant steel materials”), and the payment is 112,351,426 won in total.
E. On October 31, 2015, the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice of KRW 109,647,219 on October 31, 2015, and the tax invoice of KRW 2,704,207 on November 30, 2015, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 20, 46 (including numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would lend the Defendant’s license from L, the actual representative director, and that the instant construction would be carried out by the Defendant, and that the steel product may be ordered under H’s name.
After that, this case is subject to the Defendant’s loan from H.