(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.01.31 2019가단241724

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) 서울서부지방법원 2020.01.31 2019가단241724

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 89,374,204 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from October 25, 2019 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s supply of goods, such as synthetic fibres yarns equivalent to KRW 50,369,874 on April 30, 2019, and KRW 50,463,386 on May 31, 2019, and KRW 28,540,94 on June 28, 2019, to the Defendant may be recognized by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, and the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 50,00,000,000 from the Defendant is the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 89,374,204 won (60,369,874 won 50,463,386 won 28,540,944 won - 50,000,000 won from October 25, 2019, which is the day following the day when the duplicate of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant, to delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 25, 2019 to the day when the copy of the instant complaint was served

B. The defendant asserts that he does not have an obligation to pay the amount equivalent to 26,314,970 won to the plaintiff, since he endorsed and delivers the electronic bill to the plaintiff.

In addition to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the defendant endorsed on Oct. 1, 2019, the issuer C, the issue date C, August 26, 2019, the amount of KRW 26,314,970, and the due date of January 22, 2020, and delivered it to the plaintiff. However, if the bill is delivered with respect to the performance of existing obligations, it is presumed that the payment of the goods in this case is paid for the cause of the obligation, and there is no evidence to prove that the above amount was settled.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that KRW 26,314,970 out of the amount of the goods unpaid by the defendant's delivery of the above bill has ceased to exist due to payment cannot be accepted.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided to accept it.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2020.01.31 2019가단241724

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.08.28 2019가단54624

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.24 2017가단10656

-인천지방법원 2016.09.22 2016나4655

-서울동부지방법원 2019.05.17 2018가단125748