logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.10.02 2014가합6211
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 102,122,726 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from April 26, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a company that mainly aims at the manufacture and wholesale business of textile-related products, and the defendant is a company that mainly aims at the garment manufacturing business, etc.

On September 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply the Defendant’s raw materials (raw materials) necessary for the production of the instant product to the Defendant’s factory located in Vietnam (hereinafter “instant contract”) and agreed to receive 50% of the price for the goods until October 2013 and the remainder of 50% until November 2013.

The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with raw materials equivalent to KRW 129,122,726 in total by October 15, 2013 under the instant contract.

On October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to receive the purchase price of the goods under the instant contract from Melaba Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Melaba”), and to receive the purchase price of the goods.

The Defendant processed the raw materials supplied by the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant contract, produced the 442,200,000 won of the raw materials, and supplied them to Melba.

From December 2, 2013 to January 2014, the Defendant received part of the price for the instant manufactured goods from Melcaca, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 27,000,000 in total on four occasions as the price for the goods under the instant contract, around January 2014.

Mela Co., Ltd., around February 28, 2014, notified the Defendant to compensate for damages caused by delay in the supply and quality of the above Czek Products, and the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the goods.

[Reasons for Recognition] Where there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, witness Gap's testimony, and the cause of claim judgment of the whole pleadings, and where it is reasonable to view that the obligations need not be fulfilled unless the facts indicated in the subsidiary are generated in the juristic act attached to them.

arrow