logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.11.01 2017가단61785
임가공비 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 39,963,710 as well as the full payment from August 26, 2017.

Reasons

1. Determination on the main claim

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff is a person who works in a single heat with Aluminium in the name of “C,” and the Defendant is a corporation that runs the business of inspecting metal windows, etc. as its main business. 2) The Plaintiff continued the pre-processing and pre-processing transactions with the Defendant from around 2015 to deliver it to the Defendant, such as inserting heat after being provided with Aluminium from the Defendant.

3) From April 1, 2017 to July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a total of KRW 39,963,710 as shown in the annexed sheet, and supplied it. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute any dispute, and the evidence A of subparagraphs 1 through 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid processing costs of KRW 39,963,710 and the amount calculated by the annual rate of 15% per annum from August 26, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Around July 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with D Elementary Schools, E Middle Schools, and Aluminium new supply contract (hereinafter “new supply contract of this case”).

(2) In order to implement the instant new supply contract, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to deliver processed products by completing heat processing up to July 20, 2017, and the Plaintiff accepted the request. The Plaintiff accepted the request.

(hereinafter “The instant contract”). 3 The Plaintiff unilaterally entered into a contract with the intent to complete the work on the date of promise, despite the duty to deliver the goods that completed the heating work by July 20, 2017 under the instant contract for the clinical processing.

arrow