(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.03.19 2014가합1937

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) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.03.19 2014가합1937

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant provided LED-related parts equivalent to KRW 209,759,000 (including value added tax) on June 24, 2013 from Non-Party Pussel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”), and paid only KRW 14,759,000 on December 27, 2013, and unpaid the remainder of KRW 14,759,000.

On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff received the instant claim for the purchase-price from the non-party company against the Defendant. On March 31, 2014, the notification of the assignment of claims reached the Defendant on March 31, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 144,759,000 won and damages for delay.

2. The defendant asserts that the other party to the transaction who was supplied with goods from the non-party company did not claim against the defendant.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is the opposite party to the instant transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① Around December 13, 2013, the Defendant supplied the parts related to PE from the non-party company, but the date of supply was after the date of the instant transaction. As such, this is insufficient to recognize the instant transaction as the transaction with the Defendant and no other evidence exists.

Rather, with respect to the instant transaction, only the tax invoice in the name of C (hereinafter “C”) was issued, and the Defendant appears to have been supplied with the relevant parts from May 2013 to C, and to have paid the price thereof to C.

② As to this, the Plaintiff actually operated the Defendant Company is D, which is the representative director C, and even if the instant transaction was made with the Defendant, it is alleged that the Defendant issued the tax invoice in the name of C, at the Defendant’s request. However, D is a business, etc. in the Defendant Company.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2020.09.02 2018가단221897

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.03.15 2017가단399

-수원지방법원 2015.11.27 2015고합562

-서울북부지방법원 2017.02.10 2014가단133686

-수원지방법원 2018.10.11 2017가단527649