logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.12.19 2017가단211022
부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 87,200,000 won and 6% per annum from July 7, 2016 to June 13, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells the heat apparatus, and the Defendants have completed business registration under Defendant B’s name with the trade name “D” and engaged in the manufacturing of machinery.

B. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants to manufacture and supply “the instant machine” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant machine”) at the price of KRW 139 million (excluding value-added tax) within four months from the date of the order (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant contract”) within four months from the date of the order, to the price of “the instant machine” (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

C. At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 41.7 million out of the instant mechanical proceeds by dividing the down payment into KRW 6 million on October 21, 2015, and KRW 35.7 million on November 15, 2015, and the intermediate payment of KRW 5.6 million was changed to the time of completion of the production of presses (the payment was changed to the first and second instances thereafter) and the remainder of KRW 41.7 million was to be paid at the time of completion of the installation at the place designated by the Plaintiff after completion of the trial run.

The Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 6 million on October 21, 2015, KRW 37.5 million on December 4, 2015, KRW 27.5 million on April 5, 2016, KRW 3 million on May 24, 2016, KRW 87.2 million on July 8, 2016, and KRW 7 million on June 30, 2016.

E. The Defendants agreed to supply each of the instant machinery to the Plaintiff by November 16, 2016, and by December 15, 2016, and again by February 30, 2017, but failed to complete and supply the instant machinery.

F. Accordingly, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to cancel the instant contract to the Defendants as the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint, and the Defendants removed the instant machinery during the course of the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 8 evidence, each entry of Eul 5 to 9 evidence, witness E's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff.

arrow