(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.05.29 2017가단2723

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.05.29 2017가단2723

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,316,767 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 28, 2017 to May 29, 2018.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the cause of the claim pertains to the Plaintiff’s business chain, operated by the Plaintiff, supplied goods worth KRW 45,039,105, totaling from January 4, 2016 to November 25, 2016, to “D” operated by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 45,039,105 won for the unpaid goods and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s summary 1) recognizes that the Defendant bears the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 45,039,105. The Plaintiff and the Defendant operated an enterprise as a past partnership. The Plaintiff and the Defendant invested KRW 30 million out of the investment cost of KRW 50,000 in the Plaintiff and invested the remainder of KRW 20,000 in the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant paid 6,350,000 won to the plaintiff as a provisional deposit.

However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the repayment of KRW 1,435,00 to the Defendant, while settling a partnership relationship with the Defendant in January 2016, but the Plaintiff did not pay it.

Therefore, the above KRW 1,4350,00 should be deducted from the amount of the plaintiff's claim.

3) The Defendant supplied 3D consular parts to the Plaintiff, but did not receive KRW 32,761,749. Accordingly, the above KRW 32,761,749 should also be deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim amount. 4) Ultimately, if the Defendant deducts the Defendant’s claim amount from the Plaintiff’s claim amount as indicated in paragraph (1) 1, 2) and 3, the Defendant is obliged to receive more money from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s claim of this case should be dismissed. (C) The Defendant’s response note 1) as to the Defendant’s assertion did not have any settlement agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as alleged by

2) The amount of goods claimed by the Defendant is not the actual amount of goods but the cost to be shared in the position of its members. 3) If the settlement amount claim or the purchase amount claim asserted by the Defendant is recognized, the “E” that the Plaintiff and the Defendant operated as the partnership business is recently.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.05.31 2016나5650

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2017.08.24 2015가단4670

-서울고등법원 2017.10.20 2017나2004087

-대전지방법원 2018.06.01 2017가단5065

-부산지방법원 2021.01.20 2020나53194