logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원경주지원 2016.05.24 2015가단5616
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 parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff 1) Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff: (a) was using the pulmonary electric wires from August 1, 2014 to August 18, 2014 (hereinafter “instant machinery”).

(2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 240,460,000 to the Defendant for the purchase fund of waste cable for the test operation of the instant machinery, and KRW 33,400,00,000 on September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 207,059,050 on the ground that the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,40,000,000 to the Defendant for the purchase fund of waste cable for the test operation of the instant machinery.

3) Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff paid on behalf of the Defendant the electricity fee of KRW 5,919,190, which was imposed on the Defendant from August 2014 to November 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant ought to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 72,097,990 (= KRW 35,767,600), KRW 33,400,950, KRW 5,919,190) and delay damages.

B. Defendant 1) The representative of the Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s actual manager, proposed that if the Plaintiff newly developed the machinery of this case and completed the construction of the machinery of this case, the Plaintiff purchased the waste cable and extracted copper, using the machinery of this case, and that the Defendant sold it to the Defendant. In accordance with the proposal above, D was unable to develop a new sorting machine, but D completed the instant machine by means of assembling it into the instant machine developed by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay repair costs for the instant machine. (2) Since the Plaintiff’s loan claimed by the Plaintiff was insufficient to complete the screening machine, the Plaintiff changed the business method to directly extract the waste cable after purchasing the waste cable under the Plaintiff’s name, and then the Defendant purchased the waste cable from the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendant.

arrow