beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff agreed to treat wastes in the Defendant’s workplace with the Defendant as KRW 5 million (including value-added tax) and completed the treatment of the said wastes around December 5, 2013. The Defendant paid KRW 22 million on December 11, 2013, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 33 million. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unpaid goods and delay damages therefrom.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice on December 5, 2013, stating that “the supply price of KRW 50 million, the tax amount of KRW 5 million, and the item: Items: 5 million: The Defendant paid KRW 22 million to the Plaintiff on December 11, 2013.”
However, in full view of the following circumstances, where the Defendant appears to have issued processed electronic tax invoices (Evidence A) for the convenience of financing the Plaintiff’s operating funds, i.e., the Defendant’s testimony at the first instance trial witness C, i.e., (i) appears to have been issued for the convenience of financing the Plaintiff’s operating funds; (ii) the Plaintiff’s representative director, E, the Plaintiff’s shareholder, around May 2014, filed the instant lawsuit based on the contents indicated in C, F, G, H, I, J, J, K, K, and L, which were the Plaintiff’s shareholder, and (iii) the Plaintiff did not submit supporting materials proving that the Plaintiff was disposing of wastes in accordance with the waste disposal agreement; and (iv) the evidence presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that an agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as a value-added tax amounting to 55 million won (including the value-added tax) for the treatment of wastes in the Defendant’s workplace. Therefore, there is no reason to deem otherwise.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.