logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.05.01 2018나4480
물품대금
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 1,892,00 and also KRW 1,892,00.

Reasons

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 1,892,00 and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances, since there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff supplied and received the so-called valves, etc. to the Defendant, which is equivalent to KRW 1,892,00.

B. Determination as to the existence of the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff 1) The Defendant’s summary of the Plaintiff’s claim is an instrument for the delivery of Griper, waferer, etc. manufactured by the Plaintiff’s employees C with an order.

hereinafter referred to as “instant product”).

) Since the price for the instant goods is KRW 10,120,000, the Plaintiff asserts that it would offset the price for the instant goods by an automatic claim against the claim amount that the Plaintiff seeks as the principal claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not place an order for the instant goods, and the Defendant did not exclude the Plaintiff, thereby excluding the Plaintiff, thereby set off D through C (hereinafter “D”).

(2) According to each description or image of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 10, 16, 19, and 23, the Defendant prepared a design drawing and produced the instant product from Aug. 2, 2016 to the Plaintiff on September 3, 2016, and C prepared a written estimate on the instant product under the Plaintiff’s name, stating D as the delivery place on September 4, 2016, and the Defendant prepared a written estimate in the Plaintiff’s name, stating D as the delivery place, and the Defendant sent the instant product to the Plaintiff on June 8, 2017 by preparing a written statement of transaction amounting to KRW 10,120,000, and the Plaintiff received the instant product from the Plaintiff on the same month.

However, the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 16, 20 to 22 and the witness F of the trial court.

arrow