(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.10.27 2017나105515

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) 대전지방법원 2017.10.27 2017나105515

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. As to the electricity and fire fighting works among the extension works of the headquarters of the University Headquarters of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant on the water distribution team and the water distribution team to be used for the said extension works.

The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supply goods to be supplied to the above Corporation (including the hydroelectric power distribution team) and supplied the goods to the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay 63,93,00 won out of 270,993,00 won under a contract with the defendant, which is 23.6% of the price for the goods to the plaintiff, but the defendant shall set off against the defendant's claim for the price for the goods against the plaintiff.

Therefore, at KRW 63,993,00, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 47,862,017, which is the remainder of the amount set off by the Defendant’s claim for the purchase of goods against the Plaintiff (= KRW 15,403,159 KRW 727,924), and damages for delay.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff and the Defendant supplied the crypology from the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s name, but the Defendant agreed to pay 23.6% of the price of supplied goods to the Plaintiff out of the amount of supplied goods to be received from the cryp, and no fact exists

Therefore, even though the defendant is obliged to pay the remaining price of goods to the plaintiff, the defendant does not bear the obligation to pay the price of goods directly to the plaintiff as the purchaser of the variable period supplied by the plaintiff.

2. As to whether a contract for the supply of goods was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of the witness A at the trial alone was concluded, as alleged by the Plaintiff, with respect to whether the contract for the supply of goods was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 8 are written in each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 8.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.04.26 2015가단41197

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.05.29 2018가단9087

-서울동부지방법원 2019.09.06 2018나31462

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.02.14 2016가단10214

-대구지방법원 2019.08.29 2018나3852