logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.03.22 2017나52788
물품대금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed the facts constituting the basis;

A. The Plaintiff is a consignment sales company that concluded a contract with C (hereinafter “C”) for the vicarious execution of goods business and sold beauty goods produced by C, etc.

B. The Defendant is a distributor who arranged transactions with respect to C products sold by the Plaintiff and received allowances, and is a distributor who imports Schlage products produced by D (hereinafter “D”) which is a U.S. company (hereinafter “D”) and sells them to Korea.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 2 and 11 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a Schlage’s supply contract with the Defendant for the supply of the main claim to E, and on June 18, 2014, the contract was rescinded on September 12, 2014 because the Defendant did not supply the goods under the above contract, even though the Plaintiff paid KRW 23,00,000 to the Defendant as the price for the goods, and thus the contract was rescinded on September 12, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the Defendant the price for the goods, which the Defendant supplied to E, from the price for the said goods received from the Plaintiff, the amount equivalent to the Schlage’s products that the Defendant supplied to E (i.e., May 6, 2014 and May 12, 2014). Accordingly, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the Defendant’s damages for delay from the Defendant’s sales contract after deducting the amount of KRW 23,000,000 from the counterclaim’s products.

B. As to Defendant 1’s main claim, the Defendant concluded a contract for the supply of DNA Products with the Plaintiff as well as the premium day received from the Plaintiff in accordance with the said contract with the Plaintiff.

arrow