logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.05.12 2015나7135
계약금반환 등
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of the business of selling engine parts and supplying port goods, and the Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of inland and aquatic cargo transport business.

B. On August 5, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant under which the Plaintiff would supply the goods listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant goods”) to be installed in the “Cinjin 2” of the vessel owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the main contents are as follows.

The actual cost payment rate of KRW 229 million as of the order date: The actual cost payment rate of KRW 100 million as of the order date: The actual cost payment rate of KRW 129 million as of the order date: the actual cost payment rate of KRW 100 million as of the order date: the actual cost payment rate of KRW 129 million as of the order date: the inspection of the Korean level shall be approved at the time of production, and the expenses for inspection, customs duties, transit costs, and transportation charges shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

C. On August 5, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made a written agreement that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff in cash the amount of KRW 30 million,00,000,000 for the goods payment obligation up to August 5, 2004. In addition, in relation to the payment of the instant down payment, the Plaintiff, instead of paying to the Defendant the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which is KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0

On March 17, 2005, the Defendant delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note with the face value of KRW 100 million as the down payment, but did not pay the face value on the date of payment. As such, the Defendant decided to pay the down payment of KRW 50 million in cash and deliver the remainder KRW 50 million as a new promissory note.

E. Accordingly, the defendant.

arrow