(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.07.22 2019가단9392

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.07.22 2019가단9392

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the wholesale and retail business, etc. of the steel network products with the trade name of “C,” and around February 2019, the Plaintiff is obligated to supply wire network materials equivalent to KRW 61,490,000 in total at the Defendant’s front site, Jinan-gun site, and the head-Gun site; and on March 15, 2019, the Defendant issued electronic tax invoices for KRW 61,490,000 (value 5,90,000, value-added tax, KRW 5,590,000, value-added tax, KRW 55,900, value-added tax, KRW 5,000 (value 5,90,000, value-added tax, KRW 5,590,000) to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant did not conclude a contract with the Plaintiff for the supply of wire network materials, and the Plaintiff did not have any relationship with the D previous site, Jan-gun site, and Jan-gun site claiming that the Plaintiff supplied wire network materials, and E, written as a representative on an electronic tax invoice issued by the Defendant, had already resigned from the representative on March 5, 2019, prior to the issuance date of the tax invoice, cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

2. On March 15, 2019, with regard to whether the contract for the supply of wire network materials was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied wire network materials to each of the instant sites at the request of a person who uses a mobile phone with “F (each of the claim documents No. A)” (the statement of claim No. 2). Since the Plaintiff sent a registration certificate for the issuance of the tax invoice to that person, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence No. 3 (electronic tax invoice) is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of concluding the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, based on the fact that the Plaintiff stated to the purport that the contract for the supply of wire network materials was concluded, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the other party to the transaction is the defendant.

유사 판례

-대법원 2013. 3. 28. 선고 2012두26074 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2020.09.09 2020고단775

-대구지방법원 2012. 06. 20. 선고 2012구합562 판결

-대구고등법원 2012. 11. 2. 선고 2012누1526 판결

-부산지방법원 2016.12.22 2016구합23333