logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.10.11 2014가단38137
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,766,753 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 4, 2014 to October 11, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff supplied hot spring, etc. to the Defendant, who sells hot spring, refined sugar, etc., together with Nonparty D, who is her husband, in wholesale or retail. The Plaintiff supplied hot spring, etc. to the Defendant, who is engaged in the massing business by 2011. The amount of hot spring water paid by the Defendant by 73,868,666.

B. Thereafter, from June 21, 2012 to September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with 120 foot sugar 164 foot 164g from April 8, 2013 to April 9, 2014. The Defendant paid 171,568,540 won to the Plaintiff as the supply price.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the entry of Eul Nos. 1, 2, and 13, the witness D’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff supplied 50km to the Defendant, but its unit price was set at 15 km. 18,50 won per 15 km in 2012, and 16,50 won per 15 km in 2013 and 16,50 won per 15 km in 2014. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of 73,868,666 won in 2012 to 164,189, 000 won (=74,000,000,90,189,000) from 666, 1668, 168, 2057, 1668, 206, 160, 2057, 1668, 206, 2052, 16647, 205.

B. The parties agreed to set the unit price by converting the 500 km of sugar contained in the asphalt container bags into the sugar packed in 15 km between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, there is no dispute between the parties, but further, the unit price determined by the Plaintiff was set at the unit price of sugar supplied to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

arrow