(영문) 청주지방법원진천군법원 2014.09.18 2014가단10

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) 청주지방법원진천군법원 2014.09.18 2014가단10

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From October 12, 2010 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant supplied the goods of KRW 19,613,781 in total from September 1, 2013 to October 25, 2013. Since then, the Plaintiff paid part of the price of supplied goods to the Defendant, thereby bearing the Defendant’s liability of KRW 17,224,581.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a payment order with the Jincheon-gun District Court Decision 2014Ra151 to the effect that “The Defendant sought damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment.” On April 9, 2014, the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was issued as the Defendant’s purport of the application, and the instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on April 16, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had to supply the PPP Ban by setting 10 km per unit between the defendant and the defendant, but there was a defect in which the weight of the PP Banda supplied by the defendant is less than 10 km, and the amount equivalent to the amount of KRW 7,531,685, which corresponds to the deficient weight, should be deducted from the price to be paid to the defendant. Thus, the part which exceeds the amount of KRW 9,692,896, which is deducted from the execution based on the payment order of this case (i.e., KRW 17,224,581 - KRW 7,531,685) shall be rejected.

B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to receive the PPBP set up 10 km per unit with the Defendant solely on the basis of the descriptions and videos of each of the 10 km and Gap 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to support this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on this premise is without merit.

In addition, even if the weight of the PPD supplied by the Defendant is less than 10 km, it is a defect.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.08.22 2018나58960

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.06.27 2016가합204550

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.07.14 2014가단35425

-청주지방법원 2017.11.09 2016나14677

-청주지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가단1339