logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.04.10 2013가단171132
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,414,80 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from June 5, 2013 to April 10, 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Defendant, who runs a sales business of ED lamps, is a structure in which the two-way farmers, the government supporting business, replace the lighting of the ED pre-stage supply farmer into ED pre-stage, the government supports a certain amount of money.

B. On October 2010, the Plaintiff (an incorporated company prior to the mutual change) and the agency contract (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) were concluded with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agency contract”).

B. On October 29, 2010 to January 31, 2013, the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s agent, supplied LED electric appliances from the Plaintiff and supplied them to both-generation farmers, but failed to fully pay the Plaintiff the supply price of the ED electric appliances.

[Reasons for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is seeking payment of KRW 32,414,800 of the unpaid amount.

(1) The defendant asserts that the amount of 4,00,000 won paid and the amount of 9,680,000 won paid and the amount of 22,00,000 won paid to A should be deducted. In light of the above, the plaintiff's purport of the claim has been reduced, and this part of the claim has been excluded from this part. The defendant held that ① the amount of 3,00,000,000 won due to defective supply to B was liable to the plaintiff, ② the amount of 3,00,000 won due to defective supply to the defendant, and ② the amount of 2,000,000 won due to October 20, 200, and the unit price for 22,000 won due to the monthly payment was set at 20,000 won and the unit price for 3,921,139,139,000 won due to bad supply to B was set at 3 times,000,000 won,000 won.

B. (1) In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 9-2 as to the assertion of bad credit and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff supplied the defendant with more than 304 items on Nov. 3, 2010 to the supply of PED electric district to B, but around Nov. 24, 2010 to the defendant.

arrow