logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2016.04.26 2015가단3220
기계설계용역비
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

On June 1, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for completing the design drawings necessary for the production of C-PEJECR (hereinafter “instant design contract”) at KRW 63,000,00.

Accordingly, even though the Plaintiff completed the design drawing around July 201 and delivered it to the Defendant, the Defendant did not pay the remainder totaling KRW 44,100,000,000 for the intermediate payment and the remainder of the design price, after paying only KRW 18,90,000.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seek the payment of the above KRW 44,100,000 and damages for delay.

Judgment

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the existence of design price claim A, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant design contract with the design price of KRW 63,00,000 (the contract price of KRW 30% shall be within 10 days after the order is made, the intermediate payment of KRW 40 shall be within 10 days after the date the drawing is submitted, the remainder of KRW 30 shall be paid after the approval of the Defendant’s drawings) and the contract period from June 1, 201 to June 30, 201, which is determined from June 1, 201 to June 30, 201.

Furthermore, as to whether the Plaintiff completed and delivered the design drawing in accordance with the terms of the instant design contract, it is not sufficient to recognize the above only with the descriptions of health belts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 32, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is

Preliminary Judgment - The defendant, even if the plaintiff delivered the design drawing upon completion of the design in accordance with the design contract of this case, shall be viewed as a defense that the plaintiff's claim for the design price expired by the statute of limitations.

The design contract of this case constitutes a contract, the principal content of which is to complete the design drawing and deliver it to the defendant, and thus, if the plaintiff's claim for design price is not exercised for three years pursuant to Article 163 (3) of the Civil Act, the extinctive

arrow