beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the portion added as follows, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of
2. The addition;
A. The Defendant’s assertion (i) regarding N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) on September 29, 2017 among the tax invoices submitted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “N”) (the total amount of 65,00,000,000 won, and A8-5) is against the Defendant, and thus, it does not require the Defendant to file a claim against the Defendant.
② In issuing a tax invoice (a total of KRW 158,015,00, KRW 188-4,000, KRW 158,000, and KRW 18-4) on September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff was not aware of the receipt of the total of KRW 80,000,000,000 as the unpaid amount on August 1, 2017.
Upon first filing an application for the instant payment order, the Plaintiff omitted the total of KRW 65 million on August 29, 2017, and KRW 15 million on September 28, 2017, which was paid by the Defendant.
When reflecting all of the above amounts, the defendant paid all the construction price to the plaintiff, and rather paid 21,985,000 won in advance.
B. As to the assertion ①, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 8-5 and 10-4 of the evidence Nos. 8-5 and the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice that received KRW 65 million from N on August 29, 2017, which received KRW 65 million from N on September 28, 2017, and received KRW 65 million from N on September 29, 2017, and the Defendant and N on September 29, 2017, which included KRW 65 million paid to the Plaintiff in the name of the representative and address of the workplace. In addition, considering the above facts, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff included KRW 65 million paid to N on September 8, 202, see the preparatory brief submitted on September 2, 202. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.
(2)