logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.01.16 2014가합1684
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic facts are companies whose business purpose is textile salt processing business, etc., and the defendant is a company with textile manufacturing, wholesale and retail business, textile export and import business, etc.

The Plaintiff’s period from around 2004 to February 2014, and ① if the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to produce salt samples of the textile source design ordered by a foreign buyer, ② the Plaintiff’s system work and the Plaintiff’s system work refer to the Plaintiff’s construction of a pattern with which he will color in the original body, and the printing work refers to the construction of a mold used for salting work.

(3) Of them, if the Defendant selects a salt sample to be actually used for salting operations and send a written request for direct water processing to the Plaintiff, the Defendant, upon which the Plaintiff had been supplied to the Defendant in advance, entrusted the Defendant with the vegetable yarn (hereinafter referred to as the “instant salt operations”) exported by the Defendant.

Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in the consignment transaction of the instant salt work (hereinafter “instant transaction”), the Plaintiff and the Defendant sent to the Defendant a written claim for salt price twice a month, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a written statement of accounts stating the balance remaining after deducting the Defendant’s damages, etc. due to the defect in the goods supplied up to the time from the requested salt price to the time, and (2) if the Plaintiff accepted the tax invoice and sent it to the Defendant, then the Defendant settled the price for the instant transaction (hereinafter “instant salt price”) by paying the said balance to the Plaintiff.

On March 11, 2014, after the instant transaction was interrupted, it is the defect of the product supplied to the Plaintiff from the salt price that the Defendant had not been paid until the time.

arrow