logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.06.09 2015가단74035
매매대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,408,300 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 14, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the retail business of synthetic resin with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who runs the recycling business of plastic products with the trade name of “D.”

B. As between August 20, 2014 and October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a bareboat loan for recycling, but failed to receive the payment of KRW 20,408,300 among them.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including additional number), purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 20,408,300, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 14, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when a copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant, as requested by the Plaintiff.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant concluded a goods supply contract with E, while E does not have any separate business registration, asserts that E merely received a tax invoice under the Plaintiff’s name and paid part of the goods price to the Plaintiff at the request of E, and that there was no fact that the contract was concluded with the Plaintiff, and that the balance of the goods price sought by the Plaintiff is paid to E, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

However, as the above evidence and the defendant's own person are, in light of the above circumstances, the defendant provided goods with the tax invoice by the plaintiff not E and remitted part of the price to the plaintiff. The defendant does not seem to have any circumstance to support the fact that the party who entered into the contract with the defendant for the actual supply of goods is E, not the plaintiff. The defendant asked the plaintiff to promptly resolve the plaintiff's demand for the payment of goods, and it is not E.

arrow