beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. Around October 2014, the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) for the interior construction work from the Defendant, which is set at KRW 15,000,000 for construction cost (excluding value-added tax) as the construction cost, as set at KRW 15,000,000 for a leisure-si apartment 309, 502 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant apartment”). In light of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in subparagraph 1, it is recognized that the instant contract contains the following contents in light of the purport of the argument in the statement in subparagraph 1:
Terms and conditions of settlement: A tax invoice shall be issued at the time of settlement in cash, and a tax invoice shall be issued at the time of settlement. The amount of the construction shall be paid in addition to the additional tax (10%) at the time of the balance payment
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,50,000 won (=15,000,000 won x 10%) equivalent to the value-added tax on the construction cost of KRW 15,00,000 under the contract of this case, and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 6, 2016 to February 1, 2018, which is reasonable for the defendant to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, after serving the original copy of the payment order of this case (i.e., 15,00,000 won x 10%) and the payment of damages for delay from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts to the effect that, on the condition that the plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice in cash in order to not file a value-added tax return on sales arising from the contract of this case, the plaintiff agreed not to receive the amount equivalent to value-added tax, and that there was no fact that the plaintiff issued the tax invoice, the defendant does not have an obligation to pay
The contract of this case shall pay the value-added tax equivalent to 10% of the construction cost when the balance is paid.