(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.10.17 2018가단12710

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) 인천지방법원 2019.10.17 2018가단12710

공사대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was awarded a contract for water tank structure construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) in September 2013 to KRW 229,906,000, and the Plaintiff, around October 2013, entered into a contract with the Defendant as the construction cost of KRW 180,000 (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant subcontract.” In this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to receive the construction cost by issuing a tax invoice to the Nonparty Company instead of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not registered as a business operator.

However, the Defendant embezzled an amount of KRW 49,906,00 (=229,906,000 - 180,000,000) by arbitrarily issuing a tax invoice without the Plaintiff’s consent and receiving construction payment from the Nonparty Company.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff 49,906,000 won and damages for delay.

2. According to the instant subcontract agreement, the amount that the Defendant is required to complete the instant construction and receive from the Plaintiff is KRW 198,000,000 (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 180,000,000, barring special circumstances).

However, on July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was found to have requested the non-party company to pay the remainder of the remainder and additional construction cost of KRW 40,000,000 in the content certificate (Evidence B No. 4) that “the construction of this case was completed, and the second time claim amount was directly received from the non-party company, which was requested by the Plaintiff as a tax invoice issued under the name of the Defendant.” In light of the content of the above content certification, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had received construction payment exceeding KRW 198,00,000 only by issuing a tax invoice at his own discretion and issuing an order to submit tax information to the director of the tax office of the U.S. and the director of the tax office of the tax office of the U.S., and there is no evidence to find otherwise.

In addition, as stated in the content certification of the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원진주지원 2015.05.22 2014가단3593

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.13 2019나10285

-춘천지방법원 2017.02.16 2016가단51562

-전주지방법원 2010. 11. 02. 선고 2010구합1764 판결

-의정부지방법원 2010. 08. 17. 선고 2010구합653 판결