(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.10.08 2014나15788

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) 부산지방법원 2015.10.08 2014나15788

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the printing business with the trade name “C” and the Defendant is a person who runs the advertising business with the trade name “D,” and the Plaintiff’s price, such as printed matters supplied to the Defendant, is KRW 27,037,400.

On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2013, deducting KRW 70,37,400 from the above money.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 20 million won and delay damages.

B. The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit due to the following reasons.

① There is no transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the claim price in this case occurred in the transaction with the Plaintiff and the F in which they jointly operated.

However, the Plaintiff prepared the instant confirmation document with the fact that the Plaintiff was transferred the claim from F, and the Plaintiff did not actually receive the transfer of the claim from F.

② The instant confirmation document (Evidence A1) is merely a false document prepared by the Plaintiff to avoid additional collection in a tax investigation, even though there was no actual transaction, as if there was a transaction with the Defendant.

2. As long as the authenticity of the judgment document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any counter-proof, and shall not reject it without any reasonable explanation, but even if it is a disposition document attested to be genuine, the court may reject its probative value when there exists any counter-proof or there is a reasonable ground to see the content of the document as contrary to objective truth.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da57117, Feb. 8, 1994). First, we examine whether the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiff, as stated in the instant confirmation document, is existing.

The representative B of the advertising company D is in favor of the mutual interest in the quality of printed materials with C.

참조판례

-대법원 1994. 2. 8. 선고 93다57117 판결

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.08.21 2014가단45386

-전주지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단22181

-서울서부지방법원 2016.05.20 2015나37225

-전주지방법원 2015.09.03 2014나7059

-부산지방법원 2019.02.20 2018나51362