(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.22 2014나11012

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 2015.01.22 2014나11012

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Fact-finding that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, Gap evidence 1-1-3, and Gap evidence 2-2: The plaintiff supplied 24,043,00 won to the defendant from July 29, 2011 to December 31, 201; the plaintiff supplied 3,854,400 won around the printing machine (M-02) to the defendant on January 201; the plaintiff supplied 2,592,480 won around the printing machine (M-02) to the defendant on February 2012; the fact that the plaintiff supplied 2,00 won around the printing machine (M-02,000 won); the plaintiff supplied 2,092,480 won around the printing machine (M-02) to the defendant on March 2012 to 30, 2000 won; and the fact that the plaintiff supplied 2,000 won on March 20, 2010; and

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 12,584,368 (i.e., 24,043,00 won from January 31, 201 to December 31, 2012 to KRW 8,541,368 won from January 31, 201 - Defendant’s repayment amount of KRW 20,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 8, 2014 to the day on which the copy of the instant complaint is served.

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the defendant purchased equipment (manufacturing: MUTH and the name of equipment: VJ-1324W2) to the plaintiff, and that the defendant suffered a lot of damages due to the defect of equipment, and thus, the claim in this case cannot be complied with. The defendant's assertion is made to the effect that the claim in this case is set off against the amount equal to the plaintiff's claim for the payment of damages against the plaintiff.

First, in relation to the existence of the Defendant’s damage claim against the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge any defect in the equipment supplied by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's argument is without merit without further review.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.11.17 2016노2159

-수원지방법원 2015.11.20 2015노5548

-서울고등법원 2016.09.07 2016누38749

-대구지방법원 2015.03.25 2014가단127643

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2016.09.23 2016고정398