logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.10.20 2016가단24475
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from July 1, 2014 to August 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition: (a) The Plaintiff runs the manufacturing business of yellow earth and brick machinery; (b) the Defendant operates farm and C Cooperatives; and (c) the Plaintiff sold yellow sand manufacturing equipment (hereinafter “instant machinery”) to the Defendant on June 6, 2014 on KRW 100,000 (excluding value-added tax) and delivered the instant machinery on June 8, 2014; and (c) the Defendant agreed to pay the sales price of the instant machinery by June 30, 2014 to the Defendant on the basis of no dispute between the parties or on the entire purport of the pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 100,000,000 won of the mechanical price of this case and 6% interest per annum under the Commercial Act from July 1, 2014 to August 26, 2016, on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served, and 15% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the assertion that there is a defect in the instant machinery, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “The instant machinery is unable to produce yellow bricks that the Defendant wants by using the instant machinery, and there are many defects in the instant machinery, such as where the studio of the machinery was displayed in the process of manufacturing bricks, etc., and thus, the Defendant cannot pay the price of the instant machinery as it rescinded the contract with the Plaintiff around July 2015.” (2) Then, the Defendant cannot pay the price of the instant machinery because he had rescinded the contract with the Plaintiff by allowing the Plaintiff to return the instant machinery. (1) In the case of the sale between merchants, in principle, the buyer may, without delay, inspect the defect or the shortage of quantity, etc. and make a claim for the price reduction, damages, etc. (Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act). The Defendant, a merchant, completed the construction of the instant machinery by receiving from the Plaintiff who is a merchant without any objection

arrow