logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원의성지원 2016.08.23 2015가합10157
계약금반환 등
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,990,827 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 26, 2015 to October 8, 2015, and the following.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

1. The name of facilities for contract (supply): -1. Maod Pet type (Intermediate omission);

3. Contract amount: US$351,500 ($ US$1,024.4 on May 9, 2014) (Interim omission).

5. Payment period: After trial run for 15 days from the date of loading until June 23, 2014.

7. 15. Prior to normal operation = General matters concerning the contract = Article 1 (Matters concerning Facilities) When manufacturing and supplying the contract facilities, the contract facilities shall be manufactured, installed, and trialed in accordance with the estimates and specifications submitted to Buyer (Plaintiffs) in accordance with the contract documents, and the contract facilities shall be installed, installed, and trialed in accordance with the contract documents, and Buyer and uplier shall enter into an agreement with each other to fully install and trial the contract facilities with mutual trust.

Article 2 (Terms and Conditions of Settlement of Payments) (1) 60%: 30% after shipment. (3) Balance: Article 4 (Interim omitted) (1) Transport of facilities shall be loaded within 23 June 2014, 201.

(2) The installation of equipment and the completion of trial operation shall be completed by July 15, 2014.

3. It shall be deemed that an early implementation may be made through mutual consultations in a schedule consistent with the above conditions.

On May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the manufacture and supply of pellets pelpellets (hereinafter “instant machine”) with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the following content, and paid the down payment of USD 210,90 to the Defendant on June 18, 2014.

B. On September 16, 2014, after the payment period, Defendant representative C, facility business operator D, etc. visited the Plaintiff’s factory located in Vietnam (hereinafter “the first visit”) to install the instant machinery and operated on September 22, 2014, but the operation was discontinued due to the damage of upper and lower mV and the occurrence of smoke. (c) C/D re-manufactured the Plaintiff’s factory from November 18, 2014 to December 27, 2014, and then replaced and repaired the main parts of the instant machinery.

arrow