logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.09.08 2016가단26104
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendant (Appointed Party) is from November 17, 2016 to September 8, 2017, as well as KRW 3,653,365.

Reasons

1. Claim for the amount of goods to the defendant;

A. The facts of recognition 1) The Defendant, using the F’s trade name, receives the supply of and demand for the manufacture and supply of garbage bags from the sales cans of a stock company, and the Plaintiff again intends to manufacture and supply the garbage bed part, etc. between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff around August 2014 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) The price of the goods produced and supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant under the instant contract is KRW 13,430,360.

[Plaintiff’s assertion that the goods equivalent to KRW 16,422,210 from August 2014 to January 2015 were produced and supplied in addition to KRW 7,354,720 even thereafter. However, except the above KRW 13,430,360 recognized by the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she produced and supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 16,42,210, and the goods equivalent to KRW 7,354,720 other than KRW 13,430

(3) The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 10,776,95 as the price for the goods under the instant contract. However, according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remainder amount of KRW 2,653,365 (=13,430,360 - 10,776,995) and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 17, 2016 to September 8, 2017, when the duplicate of the instant complaint was delivered to the Defendant, as sought by the Plaintiff, as the delivery date. However, there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant returned defective goods to the Plaintiff, and thus, the amount should be deducted from the amount of KRW 936,00,00.

2) Although the Defendant asserts that he suffered enormous damages due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the supply contract, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. 3) The Defendant did not return the goods, such as subsidiary materials, etc. stored by the Selection C, etc. to the Plaintiff. This is the price of the goods as seen earlier.

arrow