logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2020.01.14 2019가합10151
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 November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a contract with the Defendant for the construction work of constructing C housing in the Jeon-gun B B (hereinafter “instant construction work”); (b) the construction work cost of KRW 5,137,579,500 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the construction period of November 28, 2013 through November 27, 2014.

B. After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a modified contract on the said construction contract over several occasions, and finally set the construction cost of KRW 5,890,393,00, and the construction period from November 28, 2013 to April 30, 2015.

(2) The Plaintiff agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax to the Defendant by including the value-added tax in the construction cost (hereinafter “instant contract for construction work”).

The Defendant completed the instant construction work in accordance with the instant construction contract.

From December 24, 2013 to December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the remainder of KRW 5,773,682,250 (hereinafter referred to as “construction price of this case”) excluding the amount of insurance premium settlement among KRW 5,890,393,00, which was finally determined in the instant construction contract.

Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant completed the settlement of the construction cost of this case.

On the other hand, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff paid KRW 524,80,207 equivalent to value-added tax among the construction cost of the instant construction contract to the Plaintiff according to the instant construction contract, although it was subject to value-added tax exemption as prescribed in Article 106(1)4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Articles 106(4)2 and 106(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, as the construction service of the instant construction contract, which is below the national standard housing scale as prescribed in Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Housing Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 12, and Eul.

arrow