beta
(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.10.29 2019나21893

기계대금

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is as follows, and the same applies to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the use of parts or addition or deletion thereof as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence

(1) The grounds for appeal by the Defendant do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted by the Defendant to this court was presented by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court are deemed legitimate. The first instance court’s appeal is to delete from the fourth to the fifth, following the fourth, the second to the tenth.

The 5th judgment of the first instance court "date of this judgment" shall be applied to "date of pronouncement of the first instance judgment".

The following shall be added to the seventh (7) judgment of the first instance and the seventh (17) judgment.

Article 477 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act provides that “The Defendant shall appropriate the debtor for the repayment of the obligation that became due and is to become due,” while Article 477(3) of the Civil Act provides that “The debtor shall be deemed to have no difference in the profit of repayment according to the prior to the due date.” This premises that the extinctive prescription of each of the above obligations for which the extinctive prescription has not yet expired, there shall be no difference in the profit of repayment following the prior date of the expiration of the extinctive prescription.”

"(In full view of the purport of the whole argument as to Gap evidence No. 8, it is recognized that the plaintiff urged the defendant to pay the machinery cost through mobile phone text messages from October 17, 2017 to January 30, 2018, and requested telephone conversations, and the defendant only shows an attitude to avoid contact without mentioning any delay or delay compensation).