logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.02.07 2019나2844
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The gist of the cause of the claim was that the Plaintiff sold implied and double copies, etc. to the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 5,466,00 from October 2014 to June 2015 (hereinafter “instant payment”), the Defendant is liable to pay the instant payment and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the Defendant: (a) was engaged in trade with the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid the price in cash by trading two silents from August 3, 2017; (b) the Plaintiff prepared the details of trade with the Defendant in the pocket book from August 2013 to June 3, 2015; (c) prepared the details of trade with the Defendant in the new pocket book from September 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff, while preparing the details of trade in the new pocket book; (d) was appropriated for paying the price for the goods generated on the day other than the instant price claimed by the Defendant; and (e) failed to settle the accounts for the existing outstanding amounts; and (e) it is recognized that the Plaintiff continued trade for three years from the time at which the outstanding amount was claimed and did not raise any objection to the outstanding amount.

Considering the fact that it is the ordinary transaction practice that the new price for the goods is appropriated for the existing outstanding amount in the transactional relationship with the above facts, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the price for the instant goods remains as the outstanding amount, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of

As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the instant amount remains, the claim for credit payment arising from a continuous goods supply contract is individually and individually proceeds from the occurrence of each credit payment claim due to an individual transaction, barring any special circumstance, and the total amount of credit payment claim from the date of termination of the transaction.

arrow