logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2014.11.12 2013가합305
물품대금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for cable cables, water distribution teams, electricity board teams, and transformers generated from removal of a factory in the Gu-U.S.-si B (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) as follows, and the value-added tax was paid separately from the purchase price.

Article 1 (Purpose) A (Defendant) promised to sell electric cables, water distribution teams, electric power boards, and transformers to the Plaintiff (Plaintiff), and Eul purchased them.

Article 2 (Sales Price) Sales Price shall be KRW 400,000,000 ( billion) in total, and Eul shall pay to Gap as follows:

1. Payment of 10,000,000 won as down payment: and

2. Any balance shall be paid KRW 300,000,000 (three hundred million) to A by February 6, 2013.

3. Any balance shall be paid to A for KRW 100,000,000 on February 14, 2013.

Article 3 (Time-Limit for Work and Delivery) A shall supply B with electric wires, water distribution teams, electricity boards, and transformers by February 6, 2013.

Article 6 (Compensation for Damages) If one party fails to unilaterally perform a contract with Party A, the damages shall be paid twice the contract amount.

B. By February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the removal of electric cables, etc. at the site of the removal, and transferred the Defendant the total amount of KRW 385,00,000,000,000 as the price for goods under the instant sales contract, on February 1, 2013, and on February 6, 2013, KRW 290,000,000, and KRW 50,000 on February 18, 2013, and KRW 385,00,000,000 on February 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, part of Gap evidence 2, each entry of Gap evidence 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s claim that the purchase and sale contract of this case was based on the quantity-designated sales contract, which was set up by the cable of not less than 70t of copper cables, not less than 80t of electric power, electric power distribution teams, electric power boards, and transformers.

Nevertheless, the old cable collected by the plaintiff at the site of removal of the factory.

arrow