logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.23 2015가합68068
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff has traded with the Defendant that supplies electronic components to ELB Co., Ltd., and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to purchase the “Ifin pumps” used in the manufacture of TV around 2013.

B. The Plaintiff sought advice from the Mon-fin-part test site (hereinafter “the manufacture company of this case”) to verify the size, quantity, unit price, etc. of the Pon-pin-pin pumps, and notified the Defendant thereof.

C. Around March 31, 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to place an order (Evidence A3) and ordered an order to do so, which corresponds to KRW 894,286,712 in total sales proceeds, on April 2014 and May 2014 (hereinafter “instant goods”). D.

The plaintiff ordered the manufacturing company of this case as ordered by the defendant, and all preparations for transporting the goods to the defendant were completed.

E. However, the Defendant, at the time of demanding the reduction of the unit price even after the order, notified the Plaintiff on September 4, 2015 that the instant goods were not ordered.

F. The defendant's above attitude clearly expresses his intention to refuse to accept the goods of this case without any justifiable reason. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 894,286,712 won for the goods of this case and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Prior to determining whether there was an order contract on the instant goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the admissibility of evidence as to the evidence evidence under subparagraph 3 (the purchase order letter), the Defendant contests the establishment of the authenticity and existence of the original evidence under subparagraph 3, the copy, and the fact that the Plaintiff lost the original evidence under subparagraph 3 is not a dispute between the parties.

In such a case, the original cannot be substituted by a copy, while the copy is submitted as an original.

arrow