logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.11.25 2016가단109741
용역비
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 20,614,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs an interim medical waste disposal business, and the Defendant is a person who operated B, a medical waste collection and transportation business entity.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a medical waste disposal contract with the purport of the Plaintiff’s incineration and interim disposal of medical wastes collected by the Defendant from Byung and a member of the Council (hereinafter “instant contract”) and traded them from May 2013.

C. The Defendant did not pay medical waste disposal expenses from October 2012 to April 2013. The sum of the accounts payable is KRW 20,614,000.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,614,000 for the unpaid medical waste disposal costs under the instant contract.

B. On April 28, 2013, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust since the Plaintiff agreed to take over all the Defendant’s obligations under the instant contract and obtained the Plaintiff’s consent while entering into a business transfer and takeover agreement with the immediately preceding business owner (hereinafter “the immediately preceding business owner”).

According to the evidence No. 2, the defendant is found to have comprehensively transferred the business he/she operated to the above P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PP, but it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff consented to the assumption of obligation between the defendant and the above P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PPPPP, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the former representative director C, claiming that he/she obtained the consent, has the right to consent on

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow