(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.04.23 2019나5687 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2020.04.23 2019나5687

물품대금및미수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and wholesale business of the c with the trade name of "C," and the defendant is the representative director of D, a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing the cathers.

B. From the beginning of 2018, the Plaintiff traded goods and services with D Co., Ltd.

C. The Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice with respect to the supply of the above goods and the provision of services as the person who is supplied with D, and D paid the price for the issuance of the electronic tax invoice.

The details of all transactions, including a statement equivalent to the amount of goods (225,200 won) claimed by the Plaintiff in the instant lawsuit, are not indicated as to whether the acquirer is confirmed.

E. On April 30, 2018 and June 25, 2018, with respect to the provision of services to D Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff entered the value of supply at KRW 2,50,000, in the electronic tax invoice dated June 25, 2018, which entered the value of supply at KRW 2,50,000, into the electronic tax invoice, including the service price and other expenses, and entered the final value of supply at KRW 3,851,364. However, according to the transaction specification, the supply value for the provision of services was calculated as KRW 2,50,000 (including additional tax, KRW 2,750,00) at the time according to the transaction specification. The Plaintiff issued two instances, and D paid this amount.

F. Around September 2018, the Plaintiff joined D Co., Ltd., and was dismissed on December 1, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant paid KRW 2,500,000 each month from April 2018 to August 2018, but did not pay the service cost for the Sewol ferry month, and that the Defendant did not pay KRW 225,200,00. The Plaintiff claimed the unpaid service cost and the unpaid goods cost against the Defendant.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's trading partner is D.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.30 2018가단5180839

-광주지방법원 2019.04.18 2018가합57310

-창원지방법원 2020.02.06 2019가합53016

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.04 2018가합563139

-의정부지방법원 2020.10.15 2019나205733