logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.02.18 2014가합24201
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 34,898,100 as well as 5% per annum from November 29, 2014 to February 18, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the purchase price of Article 2 (Sales Price) of the MZVI 800 Tron F/S) is 350,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax) and the down payment of KRW 70,000 on January 17, 2014 shall be paid, and the remainder of KRW 280,000,000 shall be replaced by the lease fund.

Article 3 (Prohibition of Unfair Practices and Delivery of Items) (2) The instant machinery is subject to the arrival of the Plaintiff’s factory.

Article 4 (Liability for Warranty) The Plaintiff cannot be liable for any liability to the Defendant on account of the breakdown, defect, etc. of the machinery after taking over the instant machinery.

On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant who imported and sold used machinery (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) under which the Plaintiff purchased a mermank presses 1 unit (hereinafter “instant machinery”) from the Defendant as follows:

B. In addition to the above printed phrase, the instant sales contract confirms that “1.c/u slicks are deposited in the instant sales contract;

2. The defendant is responsible for the issue of important parts.

The phrase "" is written as several.

C. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff wired the Defendant a sum of KRW 70,000,000,000 as down payment on February 28, 2014, and KRW 70,000,000 on June 9, 2014, and the Defendant delivered the instant machinery to the Plaintiff’s factory without assembling it on July 6, 2014.

After July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the remainder of KRW 280,000,000.

The Plaintiff confirmed that, immediately after being delivered with the instant machine by the Defendant, the Plaintiff was engaged in assembly operation, but the machinery was not operated normally.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff stated that the instant machine does not work normally, and the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff on July 11, 2014 as the repair cost of the instant machine.

E. Meanwhile, among the parts of the instant machinery that the Defendant delivered to the Plaintiff, parts omitted or defective in operation.

arrow