logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.11.19 2020나1210
물품대금
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on January 9, 2019 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling health food, and the Defendant is a company established on January 8, 2015 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling medical appliances.

B. On March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 30 million (excluding value-added tax) with the supply value of KRW 30 million for the items C and quantity of goods as 10 million.

C. On September 25, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) the Defendant D’s representative sold C produced by the Plaintiff from February 28, 2019 to deposit KRW 1,280,000 in total and KRW 2,40,000,000,000 in outstanding amount, and urged to deposit KRW 8,400,000,000,000 in total; (b) but he/she is responsible for each E. The first product was recommended by D at the time of the production, the tax invoice was issued, and the product was sent to the Defendant located in Scheon; (c) all businesses were the D representative and the goods were delivered to D representative; and (d) the remainder was deposited by October 1, 2019 to issue a certification of the content that “.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with C 280,000 won equivalent to C 8.4 million won, and 2 million won out of which was paid by the Defendant’s side, but did not receive 6.4 million won of the remainder of the goods.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining price of 6.4 million won and damages for delay.

B. The defendant received C10 million boxes from the plaintiff and paid the plaintiff the price of KRW 30 million in total (excluding value-added tax), and there is no fact that he received additional 280 boxes (this part is the part related to E, which is the child of the defendant representative director), and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The judgment was examined, and the plaintiff supplied C 1,00 boxes to the defendant, and the defendant.

arrow