logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.07.16 2019나13612
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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells interior works, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a corporation that purchased interior works, etc. from the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s representative director D decided to purchase the interior works equivalent to KRW 770,00,00 in total from the Plaintiff on April 21, 2018 (i.e., KRW 550,00,000, KRW 220,000, and the sum of KRW 198,000, the sum of KRW 198,000, and the sum of KRW 198,000, the sum of KRW 198,000 (hereinafter “the instant goods”) was also purchased from the Plaintiff.

C. On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff prepared a detailed statement of transaction on the instant goods, and delivered the instant goods to the F, 5th floor in Ulsan F, and E, a corporation that operated D, on April 26, 2018. On the same day, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice of KRW 968,000 upon being supplied with the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 968,000 (=70,000 as of April 21, 2018) for the goods of this case (=198,000 as of April 26, 2018).

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s argument that the Defendant is a party to the instant goods purchase contract, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, as seen earlier, the Defendant is a party to the instant goods purchase contract in full view of the fact that the Plaintiff delivers the instant goods to the F, 5th floor in Ulsan F, Inc., Ltd., a stock company D operated on April 26, 2018, and issued the electronic tax invoice of KRW 968,00 upon the receipt of the Defendant on the same day. However, the Plaintiff appears to have delivered the said goods to E at the request of D, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s argument is without merit.

arrow