(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.08.16 2017나4461 | 리걸엔진

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 2017.08.16 2017나4461

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 company that supplies building materials, safety supplies, etc.

B. On March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied strings by March 3, 2015 to the pelvis of the Elderly Care Center (hereinafter “instant construction”). The amount of goods not paid by March 3, 2015 was KRW 5,983,400.

C. The Defendant is the representative director of the Company B, and the Defendant claimed that the instant construction work was contracted to D and E, the owner of the instant construction work, and that the Defendant completed 95% of the construction work, and that the Daejeon District Court rendered a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit claiming construction cost under the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court 2015Gahap297 (hereinafter “instant prior judgment”).

In the preceding judgment of this case, the owner of the building defense to the effect that the defendant's subordinate companies should deduct the price paid in direct payment, but the evidence submitted at the time alone was rejected on the ground that it was insufficient to recognize the fact of direct payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that he supplied the cargo pumps to the defendant, and the defendant sought payment of KRW 5,983,40,00, which is equivalent to the amount of the goods unpaid, and the defendant asserts that the goods price of this case is not the defendant, who is the representative director B, but the defendant, who is not the defendant.

3. On the construction site of this case, the plaintiff supplied the cargo pumps of this case, and the price for the article was 5,983,400, and the defendant took part in the lawsuit claiming the construction cost of this case against D and E, the owner of the construction of this case, not B, in the defendant's personal qualification and received the prior judgment of this case. In the above prior judgment, D and E shall deduct the part of the defendant's agreement to pay the price for the article to the subcontractor or the defendant directly.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.04.28 2014가단43195

-서울북부지방법원 2015.03.11 2013가합21905

-광주지방법원 2016.05.18 2015나12662

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.01.23 2015가단13367

-수원지방법원 2017.11.29 2017가단22175