logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2019.07.17 2018가단12286
구상금
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant and the Defendant concluded a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with the content that the part of the landscaping construction work among the “Aggravated Teacher Construction Works” was to proceed (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to issue a tax invoice with regard to the price for the supply of landscaping trees to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor, etc. of this case”) that occurred in the course of carrying out the above landscaping construction to the Plaintiff that the sub-contractor, etc. of this case is the Plaintiff.

Upon accepting the above request of the defendant, the plaintiff guaranteed the defendant's obligation to the sub-contractor of this case within the scope of the construction cost under the subcontract of this case.

However, the sub-contractor, etc. issued a tax invoice with the Plaintiff as “the recipient” in excess of the construction cost exceeding KRW 39,457,800 under the instant subcontract.

D Co., Ltd., based on the tax invoice issued as above, filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the price for the goods against the Plaintiff with the Sungwon District Court 2018 Ghana20816, which became final and conclusive on September 28, 2018.

Since the Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s request, was tried to repay to the obligee without negligence, and the period during which the principal obligation was due, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to indemnity in advance against the Defendant, who is the principal obligor, pursuant to Article 442(1)1 and 4 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,457,800 in excess of the construction cost under the instant subcontract and delay damages therefor.

2. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to issue a tax invoice with the Plaintiff that the re-contractor, etc. was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff consented thereto, such circumstance alone shall be the Plaintiff and the instant case.

arrow