logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.12 2015나61490
물품대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 120,00 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from June 24, 2015 to October 12, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant received from the Plaintiff 12 copies MT650 (120,000 won per opening), MT370 2 (30,000 won per opening), and 2200 won (30,000 won per opening) from the Plaintiff, and prepared a certificate of acceptance that the Defendant accepted the said parts in the restaurant operated by the Defendant.

B. On March 26, 2014, the Defendant received from the Plaintiff four copies of Blulue M650 (120,000 won per piece), 11 of MT510 (120,000 won per piece), MT370 (14 won per piece), MT330 (30,000 won per piece), 8 copies of MT30 (30,000 won per piece), 2200 won (per piece), and then accepted the above parts of goods to the Plaintiff by the end of June.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff sold the above Blue portion to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay the purchase price even after settling accounts until the end of June 2014. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,140,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that there was no brusation from the Plaintiff. However, while displaying the Defendant’s Blusation to the restaurant operated by the Defendant, the Defendant sold the goods on consignment by the end of June 2014, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant returned the Blusation to the Plaintiff, if the customer’s response is not good after the end of June 2014.

The defendant terminated the consignment sales contract after June 2014, and the plaintiff did not hold it, even though the plaintiff had a blue portion.

However, it is recognized that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 120,000 to the Plaintiff, since the Defendant sold one blue MT650 through the consignment sale.

3. The following circumstances revealed by Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2, ① the price of Blusation (200,000), and 30,000 (50,000) for Blusation on March 3, 2014 are as follows:

arrow