logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.07.20 2016나9831
물품대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the wholesale business of furniture for office use, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs the manufacturing and wholesale business of electric, electronic, or freezing equipment distribution.

B. On February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract between the Defendant and the Defendant for the production of ten-class households (hereinafter “instant households”) with the Plaintiff, such as Washington, Ireland, New Franchising, and system franchising (hereinafter “instant households”) and for the supply of 16,240,400 won (including surtax) to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

On March 4, 2014, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 4,429,200 out of the said payment as down payment. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff produced and installed the instant household and completed the supply by implementing A/S for the portion pointing out by the Defendant, but the Defendant did not pay the remainder of KRW 11,81,200 on the grounds of defects.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 12-3 and evidence 17-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the so-called production supply contract under which one of the parties to the instant contract agrees to supply goods made of his/her own use of materials according to the other party’s order and the other party agrees to pay the price for the goods, where the goods are ancillary goods to meet the demand of a specific client, the supply of the goods in question and their production are the main purpose of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da56685, Nov. 25, 2010). The instant household constitutes the ancillary goods to meet the demand of the defendant, and thus, the instant contract constitutes a contract for the supply of the goods, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that it constitutes a contract for the supply of the goods.

B. As to the completion of the work under the instant contract, the burden of assertion and proof regarding the completion of the work is against the contractor who claims the payment of remuneration for the result of the work.

arrow