logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.22 2014가합22654
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The cost of repairing defects based on the goods supply contract concluded on November 5, 2012 between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that operates the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling computer programs, and the business of selling computers and peripheral devices. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor is a legal entity that operates the business of manufacturing and selling automatic control devices, and the business of manufacturing and selling computers and software, and the Defendant is a legal entity that operates the bus information system (non-AS) business and the business of operating the transportation information system. The Defendant promoted the business of building and installing the sports bus route guidance signs in accordance with the contract number No. 201 of the contract number No. 2012-01 ordered by the Gyeonggi-do Bus Transport Business Association. 2) On December 19, 2011, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor for supplying goods necessary for the construction and installation of the sports bus route guidance signs (hereinafter “instant previous contract”). The Defendant designed the route guidance signs and supplied the Plaintiff’s Intervenor with 7,237 goods using the method of assembling, assembling, and supplying goods in accordance with its design.

(hereinafter referred to as “the primary route guidance board”). There was no particular defect in the portion of the primary route guidance board supplied.

B. The Defendant entered into a goods supply contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”) on November 5, 2012, to be supplied with goods necessary for the construction and installation of the Gyeonggi bus route guidance board, and the goods supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on November 5, 2012 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The main contents of the instant contract are as follows. The purpose of Article 1(1) is to provide for matters concerning the supply of goods necessary for the Defendant’s business of building and installing a sports bus route guidance board by the Defendant between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. Article 2(a) of the “business of building and installing a sports bus route guidance board” refers to “business of building and installing a sports bus route guidance board” as outlined by the Gyeonggi-do Bus Transport Business Association, based on the contract number No. 201, which the Defendant ordered and received by the Plaintiff

arrow