beta
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.05.31 2016가합1624

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant, from June 18, 2015 to November 24, 2016, against the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor USD 178,816.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff produced and sold various cremation tools, etc.; from November 14, 2014 to January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant for the production of softs for cremation; and from November 26, 2014 to June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff produced and supplied the 18 instances of 391,160 US dollars to the Defendant; and the Defendant received delivery of each of the said goods from November 30, 2014 to June 17, 2015.

B. On December 20, 2016, the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff transferred the portion of USD 178,816, which was not paid from the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods against the Defendant, to the Defendant, and on December 21, 2016, the said notification was sent to the Defendant on December 22, 2016 by notifying the Defendant of the assignment of the said claim on behalf of the Plaintiff’s agent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff did not have the right to claim the performance of the above claim against the Defendant by transferring the goods payment claim against the Defendant to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

3. According to the above facts finding as to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor the amount of USD 178,816, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 18, 2015 to November 24, 2016, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, barring any special circumstance.

2. As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case by the succeeding intervenor is justified, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.