(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.01.21 2019가단15473

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) 서울동부지방법원 2021.01.21 2019가단15473

용역비

Text

The defendant shall pay 27,305,125 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from September 28, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with respect to the maintenance and repair services for each on-site computer system as ordered by the Defendant as follows:

Maintenance and repair of the D police computer system from June 16, 2017 to December 31, 2018; or 356,427,750 E unit 2017 to maintain and repair the integrated information system from June 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018; or 18,895,100 3 FF National Police Agency’s network maintenance and repair of the network and informatization equipment from June 21, 2017 to May 31, 2008;

B. On October 31, 2017, with respect to the H-site equipment maintenance and repair services, a maintenance and repair agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded between July 1, 2017 and June 31, 2018, which is KRW 25,100,000 (excluding value-added tax) during the contract period (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(c)

The Plaintiff completed each contract mentioned in the above A and the service under the instant contract, and received KRW 447,076,725 as service payment from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and A’s evidence No. 4 (H maintenance remuneration contract, Defendant’s seal image part, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established.

The defendant has forged the contract of this case by a third party.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the statement in subparagraphs 4-1 and 2 of Eul’s evidence No. 4-2 alone is not clear whether the document that I affixed the defendant’s personal seal impression is a performance certificate; (b) whether the contract of this case is a contract of this case; and (c) the defendant did not raise an objection by filing a criminal complaint against the charge of forging a private document; (d) the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the forgery of the contract of this case; and (e) there is no

The above defense shall not be accepted, and the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant stated in the above paragraph A to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2021.01.21 2019가단15473

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.08 2016고단3206

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.29 2018가합519484

-대전지방법원 2021.01.13 2020가단107947