본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.04.22 2015나10475

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal



1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for sales on the consignment of gas stations with another vessel industry corporation (hereinafter “ South Korean vessel industry”), and sells petroleum, etc. in the name of “Criju station” in Gun, Gun, Nam-gu, Namnam-do, and the Defendant, from November 7, 2011, has its head office in the name of Puju 2-ro, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Seoul, with its head office located in 41.

B. In order to be supplied with oil necessary for the construction equipment and vehicles moving to the construction site, the Defendant entered into an oil supply contract with B, which had operated the gas station under the trade name of the “Frijugu Seoul Metropolitan City” in Nam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City on November 2013, and received oil from B around that time.

(B) After this, “H gas station located in Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City” has been transferred to and operated in Seo-gu, and hereinafter “H gas station”). (c)

Meanwhile, B had the Plaintiff supply oil from November 2013 to June 1, 2014 to the Defendant. During the above period, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied oil equivalent to KRW 346,893,366 to the Defendant during the above period. However, in light of the description of the evidence No. 2 and the fact-finding results of the fact-finding with the Director of the Jeju Tax Office of the first instance court, it appears that the calculation was erroneous.

During the same period, the Plaintiff supplied oil corresponding to the above amount to the Defendant, and during the same period, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice equivalent to the above amount under the name of the Southern Ship Industry that entered into a contract for the consignment sale of gas stations with the Defendant, and received total of KRW 254,613,526 from

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and 10 (including additional numbers), Eul's testimony at the court of first instance, fact-finding with respect to the director of the tax office of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties is obligated to pay the plaintiff the oil cost of KRW 92,279,840, which is not paid by the defendant.