(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.10.10 2019나51881

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) 인천지방법원 2019.10.10 2019나51881

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Determination of the facts of recognition and the cause of claim among the grounds for this Court's explanation concerning this case is identical to that of "1. Recognition" and "2. Determination of the cause of claim" in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant's assertion and defense

A. The Defendant asserted damages caused by the supply of non-order goods and the supply of excess quantities, and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to purchase marinas from the Plaintiff on February 27, 2017 to deliver marinas. The Defendant asserts that, on the ground that the Defendant unilaterally supplied 61,100 maws in excess of the quantity ordered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Defendant suffered damages, and thus, the amount of compensation should be offset by KRW 18,330,000.

However, each statement of evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 13 (including each number), which is recognized in light of the overall purport of the pleadings, includes the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the contents of the purchase tender notice made by a DD company included the price printed for “unsatis”, and (ii) the Defendant issued a certificate of acceptance for the supply quantity of the Plaintiff (it is alleged that each of the above evidence was forged or altered; however, if the purport of the whole pleading was expressed in the statement No. 9, the authenticity is sufficiently recognized), and (iii) the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff all the amount corresponding to the supply quantity related to the D company, and (iv) the Defendant argued that the Defendant would settle the price for the supplied quantity when paying the price for the supplied quantity in accordance with the Mar. 1, 200, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff can be deemed to have been supplied in accordance with the contents of the order or delivered differently from the contents of the order.

Even if there is an understanding or new agreement on the contents and quantity of the goods to be supplied at the site.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.01.17 2018가단1348

-대전지방법원 2018.06.20 2017나104352

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.03.29 2015가단100712

-의정부지방법원 2014.09.18 2014고정591

-의정부지방법원 2020.09.10 2020나965