logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.23 2016나84346
물품대금 등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff internally created the president of the General Sales Center (A3 and 4) and entered the date of sales, items (e.g., price, amount received, balance, balance, balance carried over, etc. at each transaction with the Defendant, and managed transactions with the Defendant; (b) pursuant to the tax invoice issued by the president of the Sales Center and the financial transaction details with the Defendant; and (c) as a whole, the Plaintiff continuously sold goods such as teaching materials for public official examinations to the Defendant from August 201 to June 30, 2014; and (d) as of June 30, 2014, the remainder of the goods payment amount is 2,232,450.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,232,450 with interest calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 27, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint.

The defendant's assertion that the defendant's claim of extinctive prescription has been asserted that the payment for goods after July 3, 2013 has been paid in cash, and the previous obligation has expired three-year extinctive prescription.

A claim for credit payment arising from a continuous supply contract of goods shall individually run three years (the extinctive prescription of the price for the goods sold by the merchant under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act) from the time each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction occurs, except in extenuating circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 77Da2463 Decided March 28, 1978, and Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152 Decided January 21, 1992, etc.). In a case where the parties were either aware of the obligations of the king arising during the continuous transaction process of ordering and supplying goods, etc., or there was a procedure for performing part of the obligations verified or confirmed, the obligor who is a party to the extinctive prescription benefit.

arrow