(영문) 춘천지방법원 2019.05.15 2018나53518

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) 춘천지방법원 2019.05.15 2018나53518

공사대금

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court.

The reasoning of this court is as follows, except for those written in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion of the first instance judgment, which was written off, generated “one-time property” portion of the third upper part of the third upper part of the first instance judgment, which is “one-time real estate” (the Defendant does not dispute the fact that the instant real estate is the only real estate of the Defendant Company). The part of the lower court’s fifth lower part from 8 to 10-day upper part of the fifth lower part of the first instance judgment is as follows.

【The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by each description of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 12, witness H, and G’s testimony and the entire purport of pleadings, i.e., value-added tax on ① the value-added tax stated in the contract is 48,00,000 won equivalent to the value-added tax on the supply value and the purchase value is not the value-added tax to be borne by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s purchase value-added tax

In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice that does not include value-added tax except for the first two occasions; (b) there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company regarding value-added tax; (c) there was no evidence that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company regarding value-added tax; and (d) there was no other evidence that the amount of KRW 480,00,000, which was stipulated in the instant construction contract, is significantly lower than the ordinary construction cost amount; and (b) there was no other evidence that there was no other evidence that there was a significant amount of the construction cost; (c) there was an agreement or agreement that the Defendant Company would compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the value-added tax to be purchased by the Plaintiff in connection with the instant construction project; and (d) the Defendant Company did not inform the Plaintiff

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2019.05.15 2017나54491

-춘천지방법원 2019.05.22 2018나52492

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.18 2018나33144

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.12 2015나60589

-서울고등법원 2020.06.04 2019나2027657