logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.17 2017가합9560
약정금
Text

1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 700,000,000 and its KRW 30,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 from April 1, 2012.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The parties’ relevant Plaintiff is a company with the objective of manufacturing the steel structure and the re-trial trial. On August 12, 1999, the Defendant established C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) for the purpose of selling steel products and re-trial trials, etc., and operated C as its representative director.

The representative director D of the plaintiff began to deliver a double-trial trial manufactured by the plaintiff to C after around 2002.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of the instant re-trial on two occasions around 2009, and C entered into a contract for the supply of the instant re-trial to each E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) for a total of nine times from August 14, 2009 to April 15, 2010, on nine occasions with each E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

(2) The Plaintiff and C’s delivery contract of the instant re-trial (hereinafter “instant re-trial delivery contract”). The delivery condition of the instant re-trial delivery contract was to repurchase the re-trials delivered by C to E from KRW 162,00 to KRW 180,000 per sheet, and with D’s joint and several liability, the G Co., Ltd’s guarantee bond was issued to guarantee the payment of damages incurred due to C’s non-performance of the above redemption condition within the limit of KRW 357,210,000 from April 15, 201 to October 31, 2011.

C. C’s transaction structure of the instant sub-trial delivery contract for the instant case in which payment and redemption conditions are not fulfilled was wholly produced by the Plaintiff, and C paid the Plaintiff the remainder after deducting C’s profits from the supply price received from E.

C around May 2010, the delivery of the entirety of the re-trials according to the delivery contract of the instant re-trials to E and the payment for it was received from E, but the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 700 million for the re-trials to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the price for the re-trials”).

C On November 2010, the office was closed at the time of insolvency, and this case.

arrow