(영문) 인천지방법원 2021.03.18 2019가단250199

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) 인천지방법원 2021.03.18 2019가단250199

물품대금

Text

The defendant shall pay 41,294,020 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from December 3, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures the Montreal (hereinafter “multi-use”) for industrial multiples.

B. From around 2015, the Plaintiff supplied teas to the Defendant, and the Defendant processed and produced iron bars using the tea supplied by the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the plaintiff has returned to the defendant by re-collection and repair of Daes used by the defendant, even after the delivery of Daes to the defendant.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul's motion pictures and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff sought the payment of the purchase price of a set of goods supplied to the Defendant from July 18, 2016 to September 30, 2019, which was derived from calculation of the amount of the instant lawsuit from July 9, 2019, which was within three years (including the filing date of the instant lawsuit, to September 30, 2019 (the Defendant asserted that the amount paid to the Plaintiff during the said period was paid as the price of the goods for the pertinent month during which the said amount was paid, and the Plaintiff also assessed the claim amount on the premise of the payment). In full view of each of the arguments stated in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number), the entire purport of the pleadings is as follows: (i) the outstanding amount that was incurred from July 18, 2016 to September 30, 2019 to the Plaintiff is KRW 41,294,020 as of September 30, 2019; (ii) the Defendant is not obligated to pay the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff.

B. First of all, the Defendant asserts that the claim in this case is contrary to the good faith inasmuch as there was an implied agreement to extinguish the claim for the price of goods arising during the pertinent month by paying KRW 1.5 million per month to the Plaintiff.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant paid 1.5 million won to the plaintiff every month from January 20, 2016, but it is recognized that there was an implied agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to limit the monthly price to KRW 1.5 million.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.12.16 2016나49785

-대구지방법원 2019.07.09 2019가단115058

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2014.05.14 2012가단2387

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.01.27 2014가단35418

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2021.01.13 2020가단5341