logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.12.09 2016나54330
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

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a company running the manufacture and sale business of pumps and pumps, supplied pumps and pumps to the Defendant from November 7, 2008 to December 2014.

B. As of July 2014, the Plaintiff’s price for attempted goods against the Defendant was KRW 29,390,526. From July 2014 to July 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000, out of the price for attempted goods to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s price for attempted goods against the Defendant remains KRW 19,390,526.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from December 3, 2015 to the date following the delivery of the certified copy of the instant decision on performance recommendation with respect to the instant amount of KRW 19,390,526, as well as damages for delay calculated from December 3, 2015 to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the criminal cases, such as giving rise to breach of trust with D, the secretary general of the defendant, E, the defendant's profit-making business director, and F, the defendant's employees, who were the representative director of the plaintiff's assertion and the defendant's profit-making business director, C agreed to share KRW 20,000,000 among the attorney's fees jointly appointed at the police stage.

Nevertheless, C paid 20,000,000 won, which is the share of C, as the representative director of the Plaintiff, C decided not to receive the attempted money of this case against the Defendant within the scope of the Defendant’s attorney-at-law’s claim for reimbursement against C. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for attempted money of this case against the Defendant was disposed of as set-off and has already been extinguished.

(b) to examine the facts of recognition, A.

arrow