(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.10.29 2019나57914

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) 서울남부지방법원 2020.10.29 2019나57914

물품대금

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff engaged in the manufacturing of cut tools, wholesale business, etc., of a judgment on the cause of the claim entered into a contract with the Defendant for the sale of cut tools, and the Plaintiff pursuant to the said sales contract, supplied CNC Section Section, etc. to the Defendant from May 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018, and did not receive KRW 18,479,214 out of the price, may be recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 18,479,214 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 11, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion is a defense to the effect that the defendant paid part of the unpaid goods price after the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the defendant paid the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3 million on May 26, 2020, which was after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, and on September 3, 2020, which was after the judgment of the court of first instance, to the plaintiff. However, there is no dispute between the parties, but the repayment due to provisional execution is not final and conclusive, and it is nothing more than that arising out of the terms of the cancellation of the declaration of provisional execution or the judgment on the merits at the appellate court, and therefore, the amount of provisional execution was paid pursuant to the judgment of the court of first instance.

Even if the appellate court does not take this into account, it should determine the legitimacy of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da560, Jul. 6, 2000). The defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

참조판례

-대법원 2000. 7. 6. 선고 2000다560 판결

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.03.31 2015나11510

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.05 2018나40265

-서울서부지방법원 2016.07.21 2015나4317

-광주고등법원(제주) 2017.04.12 2016나10386

-서울고등법원 2018.03.23 2017나2054198