logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.16 2016나479
물품대금
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant’s PCB Park (FRNT and REAR case) from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive a contract for the production of PCB Park (FRNT and REAR case) (hereinafter “the gold type”) at KRW 21,000,000 (excluding value-added tax).

The Plaintiff received KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant around that time.

The written estimate submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant at the time of the contract is indicated as “the addition of the drawings will be made at the time of the first examination, and the remainder will be paid at the time of the first examination

B. C Company D cut samples of the instant gold paper using the instant gold paper produced by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant examined them and requested the Plaintiff to revise the instant gold paper around November 28, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 1,650,000 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant on November 28, 2014, with the name of “FRONT case”.

Since December 10, 2014, the gold penalty of this case is kept by D.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry (including paper numbers) of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of both claims;

A. Since the Plaintiff completed the production of the gold punishment of this case, including the correction work requested by the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the gold production price of KRW 12,650,000 (21,000,000-10,000 + 1,650,000) including the correction work cost.

B. Although Defendant entrusted the correction work on November 28, 2014, paid KRW 1,500,000 for the correction work, the Plaintiff did not perform the correction work for the instant gold punishment.

The Plaintiff failed to complete the production of the gold paper of this case, and did not deliver the gold paper to the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances as to the completion of the production of the gold of this case, the above recognition facts, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional numbers), and witness D's testimony, the whole purport of the pleadings, and the Plaintiff.

arrow