(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.12.16 2016나52704

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) 광주지방법원 2016.12.16 2016나52704

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. On January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a product transport service contract with the content that the Plaintiff shall transport goods designated by the Defendant to the customer, and the Defendant shall pay transport charges to the Plaintiff in return (hereinafter “instant transport contract”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff provided transportation services by September 16, 2014 in accordance with the instant transport contract, and the Defendant and the registered logistics company (hereinafter “registered logistics”).

Since the Plaintiff is the same company, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 11,868,562 for the unpaid service charges. 2) The Defendant agreed to pay KRW 100,000 per month per 12 months in the event that the Plaintiff purchases new vehicles and uses them for transportation. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 4,800,000 for new 4 new vehicles to the Plaintiff.

3) Since the Defendant violated the instant transport contract, it is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 10,00,000 to the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The parties to the instant transport contract were changed from the Defendant to the master logistics after May 1, 2014, and thus, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the transport service cost after May 1, 2014.

2) According to the instant transport contract, the new subsidy is subject to consultation, and the Defendant agreed to pay the new subsidy when the Plaintiff attached the business license plate. Since the Plaintiff did not attach the business license plate by April 2014, the Plaintiff did not pay the new subsidy. 3) Since the Defendant did not violate the instant transport contract, it did not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff consolation money.

3. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number) as to the parties to the instant contract since May 2014, the Plaintiff issued electronic tax invoices concerning transportation fees to the Defendant from January 2014 to April 2014, and Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.05.29 2015가단5860

-광주지방법원 2016.04.20 2015가단525815

-수원지방법원 2017.05.18 2016나16495

-인천지방법원 2018.10.25 2018가단200296

-대구지방법원 2020.11.11 2020가단100311