(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.08.17 2017가단7809

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) 광주지방법원 2018.08.17 2017가단7809

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for goods supply, such as steel bars, for a period of one year between the Defendant and the Defendant who is engaged in steel wholesale retail business.

B. The Plaintiff issued electronic tax invoices claiming the supply of goods, such as steel bars, from the Defendant, and paid the Defendant totaling KRW 95,77,082 (including value-added tax) five times in total as follows.

Serial 16,177,77,700 August 25, 2016: (a) the amount of payment on the date and time of the request (including value-added tax; (b) the amount of payment on the date and time of request (unit = KRW 16,17,700; (c) 16,17,700 on August 25, 2016; (d) 33,152,031 on September 33, 2016; (d) 152,0313; (e) 30,147, 351 on September 30, 2016; and (e) the aggregate of the certificates of payment No. 147, Oct. 14, 2016; (e) 10,015; (e) 10,50,016, Oct. 14, 2016;

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion is a new construction corporation A (hereinafter "the construction of this case").

A) The Defendant is the contractor. The Defendant is the company that supplied steel bars, etc. to the above construction site. On the other hand, the price for supply that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant is the total of KRW 95,77,082, and the price for supply of steel bars that the Defendant actually supplied to the Defendant at the construction site of this case is merely equivalent to KRW 16,524,00, and the remainder that the Defendant paid by the Plaintiff is the amount that the Defendant acquired unfairly without any legal ground. Therefore, the Defendant must return the remainder to the Plaintiff. 2) As the Defendant’s on-site manager of the instant construction site, the Plaintiff, who was authorized to purchase the said materials, such as steel bars, supplied the steel bars to another place outside the construction site of this case, and issued the Plaintiff’s transaction specifications and electronic tax invoices upon the Plaintiff’s request.

The internal settlement issues between the plaintiff and B are separate, and the plaintiff shall be the plaintiff B.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2016.02.02 2015가단7259

-서울남부지방법원 2017.09.21 2015가단244412

-창원지방법원 2017.07.18 2016나60314

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.18 2019가단5049485

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2016.10.20 2016고단1047