(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.01.18 2016가단13039

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) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.01.18 2016가단13039

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant: KRW 86,136,239, and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 15, 2016 to January 18, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company selling the meat, and the Defendant is a person who operated the marina in the trade name of C, D and Eart (hereinafter the above trade name) and supplied the meat from the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of the price of the meat supplied to Jeonju District Court 2015 Ghana36552, but the Defendant asserted that he/she was the debtor of the said payment and dismissed the said claim on November 19, 2015.

C. There was a suspicion that the Plaintiff’s representative director F and G engaged in his/her business was aware of the acquisition of 25 million won property gains by deceiving the weight or unit price of the land supplied to Dat and Eat from July 2014 to February 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “related criminal cases”. However, on March 10, 2016, there was a decision not to institute a prosecution for lack of consultation on the grounds that evidence in the above criminal case is insufficient. [Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 6 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff has an outstanding amount of KRW 40,815,696 in relation to the Defendant, and KRW 38,987,943 in relation to EM and KRW 8,769,70 in relation to C.

B. There is no credibility, such as that there is a difference between the description of the transaction statement and the customer director submitted by the Defendant.

The supply details, payments, etc. alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be believed to be significantly exaggerated.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the facts of the recognition of credibility by the director of the customer headquarters, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1-3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-3, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole, it is reasonable to deem that the director of the customer headquarters (the director of the customer headquarters No. 1-4) submitted by the plaintiff except for the part set forth in

(1) The Director of the Customer shall provide the kinds of goods supplied by the Plaintiff on each day.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.01.10 2019나51825

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.12.20 2017고단1167

-광주지방법원 2018.03.16 2016가단34644

-대전고등법원(청주) 2015.02.10 2014나20616