(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.26 2016가합510919

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.26 2016가합510919

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 449,037,052 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 12, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the production and supply of clothing, entered into a “basic contract for production transactions” with the Defendant who conducts the clothing sales business on July 4, 2013 and July 25, 2013, and with the Defendant’s order that the clothes be manufactured, processed, and supplied according to the Defendant’s order.

B. In accordance with the Defendant’s order, the Plaintiff manufactured and processed and supplied clothing, and issued the electronic tax invoices of KRW 1,65,022,852, which totaled from December 31, 2013 to April 13, 2015, to the Defendant. The Defendant did not pay the remainder of KRW 449,037,052 (= KRW 1,665,02,852 - KRW 1,215,985,800) with only a total of KRW 1,215,985,80 until December 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the fact that the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff was falsely issued or that the Defendant raised an objection to the tax invoice, the Plaintiff appears to have issued an electronic tax invoice for the quantity supplied after supplying the clothing in accordance with the Defendant’s order. Barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 449,037,052 and the delayed payment thereof, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not supply all the goods ordered by the defendant, and there were many defects in the goods supplied, thereby causing considerable damage to the defendant.

Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to reduce the amount of the goods unpaid on or before May 2015, only 27,726,90 won are remaining.

B. It is insufficient to recognize that the entries of the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number) alone, as alleged by the Defendant, agreed on the reduction of the price of the goods by the original and the Defendant around May 2015, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, the Plaintiff’s supply is the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2021.04.23 2020가단9213

-수원지방법원 2019.01.18 2018가합1271

-수원지방법원 2020.07.09 2019나82691

-서울북부지방법원 2020.09.10 2019가단4783

-광주지방법원 2020.01.15 2019나51405