(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.09.23 2019가단19520

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.09.23 2019가단19520

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 25,700 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 4, 2019 to September 23, 2020 and the next day.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is operating a bilateral hall with the trade name of “D”.

The defendant is running a distribution business in the mutual name of "E".

B. From November 2018 to April 2019, the Plaintiff supplied a disturbance to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 81,89,800 in total to the Plaintiff seven times from January 8, 2019 to May 23, 2019.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff did not receive KRW 30,675,200 from the defendant on the basis of Hen's eggs trial information of the F Association (hereinafter "the market price information of this case") which was investigated and published by the F Association, calculated the spawning price, and received KRW 30,675,200.

The defendant asserts that the amount of the disturbance was determined in consultation with the plaintiff, and that the price was 81,925,500 won, and that the amount of the disturbance was 81,89,800 won, and that the unpaid amount was only 25,700 won.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that an agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to supply a disturbance at a price based on the market price information of this case, and rather, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant has determined the disturbance price in consultation with the Plaintiff and paid the price thereof in consideration of the following circumstances, in view of the following circumstances, which can be known by the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

First, although the market price information of this case can be seen as an objective data about the shared price information, in principle, it is the common sense of transaction to regard the column price as determined by an agreement between the supplier and the beneficiary, and there is no evidence that there is a common custom that actual transaction takes place at the same price as the market price information of this case.

Second, the plaintiff submitted as evidence.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.11.30 2016나7231

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.11.25 2019가단227281

-서울북부지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가단869

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.06.21 2017가단3121

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2019.03.05 2018가단10102