(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가합105246

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가합105246

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 278,220,044 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 12, 2017 to May 15, 2018.

Reasons

1. On September 8, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff would import and supply the goods to the Defendant on the basis of the cause of the claim. The Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant on 11 occasions from September 16, 2017 to September 16, 2017 under the instant goods supply contract, and the fact that the current amount of the goods the Plaintiff would have not received from the Defendant was 278,220,044, may be recognized by taking into account the respective entries and arguments in subparagraphs A through 4.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 278,220,044 won of the unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from October 12, 2017 to May 15, 2018, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the plaintiff, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The part of the argument on the subject of the obligation to pay the goods was that the Defendant was unable to be supplied with the goods even though the Defendant paid the goods to the local network supplier of the Philippines in full. However, the Defendant asserted that since the Plaintiff concluded the instant goods supply contract with the view to supplying the goods through the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, who was not the Defendant, should be paid the goods from the suppliers of the Philippines.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the price of the goods from the Switzerland network and supplier, not the Defendant, at the time of entering into the instant goods supply contract. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

B. The part of the defendant's assertion as to the defect in goods is against the plaintiff.

참조조문

-상법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.06.23 2015고단2510

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.12 2018고단2298

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.12 2017고단8703

-서울동부지방법원 2016.07.08 2015가단34193

-서울남부지방법원 2016.05.20 2015가단222863