logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.08.18 2015가단6803
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff KRW 68,608,806, and 6% per annum from June 6, 2014 to July 28, 2015.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On November 11, 2013, Defendant A and B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A” and “Defendant B”) ordered the Plaintiff to have the estimated volume of 2,400 cubic meters, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of Defendant A and B, and written the following orders (Evidence A3, hereinafter “instant order”).

Terms and conditions of cash settlement, including the standard quantity unit price 25-21-12 - 1 - 60,000 additional taxes: Defendant A and B:

3. The quality of ready-mixeds and asphalts shall be guaranteed to the point of arrival at the construction site, and quality changes following on-site conditions and construction shall not be responsible.

As joint and several sureties: Between December 9, 2013 and June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed 2,545 cubic meters, 168,608,806 Won to Defendant A’s new factory construction site, and received KRW 100,000,000 out of the price of ready-mixed.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, the appraiser's appraisal result of compression robbery, the plaintiff's assertion by the parties concerned as to the whole purport of the pleading, and Eul is jointly and severally liable for the joint and several surety for the above obligation of defendant A and B, and the defendant C is obligated to pay legal interest or delay damages from June 6, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is the 68,608,806 won of ready-mixed value not yet received by the plaintiff, and from June 6, 2014 to the date of full payment.

피고들의 주장 피고 A, B은 원고로부터 압축강도 21N/㎟ 이상의 레미콘을 공급받기로 약속받았으나 원고가 공급한 레미콘의 압축강도가 이에 미치지 못하여 피고 A, B로서는 공장바닥의 철거 및 재시공을 해야 하는 등 오히려 손해를 입었으므로 원고에게 레미콘 값을 줄 수 없다.

Judgment

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit, and the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(1) As a result of appraiser’s evaluation of compression robbery, the Plaintiff supplied and removed the factory floor of this case.

arrow