logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.11.21 2019나1360
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 8, 2016, the Defendant contracted to construct C, D, and E Road (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Plaintiff leased equipment to the instant construction site from September 2016 to August 12, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff requested F and G to issue a false tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff (mutual H) upon receiving a request from F and G to issue a false tax invoice in which equipment rental fees are collected from F and G.

From September 2016 to May 2017, F and G issued a tax invoice of KRW 86,185,000 in total, to the Plaintiff, a person who actually leased equipment at the instant construction site from October 31, 2016 to May 30, 2017, with the supplier’s total amount of KRW 86,185,00,00 for eight times from October 31, 2016 to May 30, 201. The Plaintiff paid KRW 86,185,00 from the Defendant for the rental of equipment, and remitted KRW 23,40,000 to F and G.

C. On the other hand, from June 1, 2017 to August 12, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with respect to the rental fee of the equipment leased at the instant construction site (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) at KRW 27,830,00 in total, with respect to the Defendant and the supply price of the person who is supplied as of July 30, 2017; July 31, 2017; and August 12, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 3 through 17 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff leased equipment equivalent to KRW 27,830,000 from June 2017 to August 12, 2017 at the instant construction site.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not lend equipment equivalent to KRW 27,830,000 at the construction site of this case, and that the plaintiff issued a false tax invoice by withdrawing rental fees.

(b).

arrow