(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.11.27 2019가단142821

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) 서울북부지방법원 2020.11.27 2019가단142821

납품대금지급

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a supply contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, setting the supply period from August 11, 2016 to August 31, 2016, by setting the contract amount of KRW 42 million (excluding value-added tax) and the delivery period from August 11, 2016 to August 31, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff received 8.8 million won down payment from the Defendant on the day of the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Until October 3, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the delivery of the instant agreement after completing the Chodo-do-do-computer-computer-ray work as stipulated in the instant agreement. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 37,40,000,000 calculated by subtracting the Defendant’s payment of KRW 8.8 million out of the contract amount of KRW 46,200,000 (including value-added tax) stipulated in the instant agreement. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to wait for the Plaintiff to stop production after concluding the instant agreement, and that the E development project will be terminated without receiving delivery as the discontinuance of the development project thereafter.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the completed view and the delivery of slotdo have been made according to the contract of this case is unfair.

B. As to the completion of the delivery of a product, the circumstance recognized by the health team, Gap evidence No. 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, that is, Article 6 (Supply) of the supply contract provides that "the delivery place shall be the place designated by the defendant. The delivery place shall be limited to the quantity and the product that passed the defendant's inspection," and Article 7 (Payment for Price) provides that "if the plaintiff has completed the supply of the product without defects, the defendant must settle 80% of the contracted amount for the quantity of the product."

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.06.23 2016가단242390

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.08 2014가합538395

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.09.17 2013가합8496

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.12.21 2017고단2376

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.04.20 2015가합101138