beta
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.06.11 2014가단38462

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 9,026,90 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from May 29, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that repairs and repairs the pump, which is a construction material, and the Defendant is a person who engages in a construction material lease business, such as water pumps, under the trade name of “B.”

B. The Plaintiff was requested to repair the pump from the Defendant. From March 2012 to October 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff repaired and supplied the glass pumps, and the unpaid repair amount is KRW 9,026,90.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant should pay the unpaid amount of KRW 9,026,90 to the defendant, the defendant asserts as follows.

In other words, “the Defendant leased the pump repaired by the Plaintiff at the construction site, and there was a defect (hereinafter “shipom”) in the work using the pump. This is because, unlike the Defendant’s order to use the domestic joint board on the repair of the pump, the Plaintiff was using the low-water domestic joint board. Therefore, the Defendant is unable to respond to the Plaintiff’s request, and the Plaintiff is obliged to compensate for the rent and late payment charge of the waterway pump that the Plaintiff did not receive from the Defendant.

B. There is no sufficient evidence to deem that when the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to repair the pump, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to use the domestic joint board, not the Korean joint board.

[No. 9 (E.) cannot be used as evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion, because the Defendant’s proof No. 9 (E. 9) differs from the content of the Plaintiff’s proof that the Plaintiff issued to the Plaintiff. In addition, there is no sufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant’s assertion was due to the Plaintiff’s fault in repairing the Plaintiff’s oil uniforms. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion, the Defendant, as to the amount of KRW 9,026,90 that was not paid to the Plaintiff and the amount therefrom, shall be promoted from May 29, 2014 to the day of full payment after the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.