(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.06.19 2015가단102233

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.06.19 2015가단102233

청구이의

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in gold-type production with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who runs a seal business with the trade name of “D.”

B. On August 2012, the Defendant: (a) requested the Plaintiff to produce gold paper in order to supply Nonparty E with red sea cover parts; (b) was supplied with gold paper from the Plaintiff on October 30, 2012; and (c) did not pay KRW 22,837,860 out of the gold paper to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to offset the price for future painting, and requested the Defendant to seal CCTV parts from November 30, 2012 to February 6, 2013, and the Defendant completed all of the painting work as requested.

(hereinafter “instant painting”). D.

From November 2012 to February 2013, 2013, the Defendant filed a suit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the balance of the above punishment and the delay damages therefor on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the amount of the punishment even though the amount of the punishment remains, even though the amount of the punishment of KRW 19,622,744 is set off with the amount of the punishment of KRW 43,185,604 at the Plaintiff’s request, from this court No. 2014Ga6598, Dec. 16, 2014, the Defendant recommended the Defendant to recommend that “the Plaintiff shall pay the amount of KRW 19,622,744 to the Defendant at the rate of 20,000 per annum from the day following the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case to the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served.”

hereinafter referred to as "the execution recommendation decision of this case"

E. The instant decision on performance recommendation was served on the Plaintiff around that time, and the Plaintiff became final and conclusive as it did not raise any objection to the instant decision on performance recommendation. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds of recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant completed all of the painting work at the plaintiff's request, but this case is acknowledged.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.05.29 2014가합4140

-수원지방법원 2019.12.12 2018나91841

-인천지방법원 2015.06.25 2014나1737

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.03.27 2014가단46305

-수원지방법원 2015.04.03 2014나19438