logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.11.27 2018가단222932
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 161,836,140 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 26, 2018 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the wholesale and retail business of bank supplies and consumer goods, etc. with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business of bank supplies, etc. with the trade name of “D.”

B. From July 2014 to April 2018, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with guard goods, such as water storage. According to the sales declaration reported by the Plaintiff during the said period, the Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return on the Plaintiff’s purchase of the goods totaling KRW 569,545,90,90,000, and the Defendant also filed a value-added tax on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant: (b) KRW 190,00,00 in 2014; (c) KRW 150,073,840 in 2015; (d) KRW 150,238,00 in 20,00 in 2016; and (e) KRW 159,59,000 in 20,367,380 in 20.

[Reasons for Recognition] A.1 to 39 Facts without dispute, each entry (including each number, if any) in Gap's evidence, and the result of the submission of taxation information to the National Tax Service

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a total of KRW 569,545,90 from July 17, 2014 to April 11, 2018. Since the Plaintiff received only KRW 407,709,760 from the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remainder amount of KRW 161,836,140 and damages for delay.

B. As between July 1, 2014 and May 30, 2018, Defendant (1) was supplied with a total of KRW 418,128,760 from the Plaintiff during the period from July 1, 2014 to May 30, 2018, Defendant paid the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 418,128,760, the amount of the goods that was not paid is nonexistent.

(2) Although the Plaintiff’s sales and purchase declaration was made for the price alleged by the Plaintiff, the return of the defective price and the adjustment of the transaction amount were not reflected, and only value-added tax was paid without any actual transaction, and the transaction amount was over-reported and reported, and do not coincide with the actual transaction details.

3. Determination

A. We examine the Plaintiff from 2014, as seen in the facts acknowledged in the above 1.1.

arrow