logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.06.19 2018가단3023
물품대금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 73,120,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from March 3, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff completed the production, supply and installation of the automatic text equivalent to KRW 360,4120,000 to the Defendant by November 14, 2017, and the Plaintiff directly received KRW 291,000,000 from the interest corporation, the original company, with the Defendant’s consent.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 7,3120,00 won for the unpaid goods (=366,4120,000 won - 29,000,000 won) and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 3, 2018 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the service of the original copy of the payment order in this case.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff and the corporation were unable to respond to the plaintiff's claim as long as the plaintiff agreed to reduce the price of goods that should be paid by the defendant to KRW 291 million.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff, with the consent of the Defendant, received directly the amount of KRW 291 million out of the price of the goods against the Defendant with the consent of the Defendant from Heung Construction Co., Ltd., but the facts and the evidence presented by the Defendant alone, as alleged by the Defendant, have reached an agreement on reduction of the price of the goods as alleged by the Defendant. Even if there was an agreement as alleged by the Defendant, it is merely merely an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it is difficult to view that such agreement would have effect on the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow