(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.05.08 2014가단18081

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.05.08 2014가단18081

매매대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s determination on the cause of the claim is a person engaged in the wholesale business, etc. of fishery products under the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person engaged in the sales business, etc. of fishery products under the trade name of “D”, and the Plaintiff sold mistakenly to the Defendant in an amount equivalent to KRW 186,394,000 from January 7, 201 to September 8, 2011. The Plaintiff received KRW 152,00,000 from the Defendant as the price for the goods requisitioned to the Defendant from August 26, 2011. The fact that the price for the goods requisitioned to the Plaintiff was KRW 34,394,000 (hereinafter “the price for the goods in this case”) that the Defendant had not been paid to the Plaintiff until now is either disputed between the parties or recognized by the statement in subparagraphs A and 2.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 34,394,000 won for the goods of this case and its delay damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. A. Around November 201, the Defendant’s defense of debt exemption had caused a serious traffic accident. At that time, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed not to receive the price of the instant goods, which constitutes a defense to the effect that this constitutes a debt exemption. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on debt exemption, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Defendant’s defense cannot be accepted.

B. 1) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of the goods of this case has expired. 2) The plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of the goods of this case against the defendant is subject to the three-year short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code. On the other hand, the payment period of the above claim shall be deemed to come when the defendant is supplied with the goods unless otherwise specified by the parties.

However, the plaintiff finally supplied goods to the defendant.

참조조문

-민법 제163조 제6호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.03.30 2016나56585

-제주지방법원 2018.07.19 2017나1752

-수원지방법원 2015.09.24 2015나12731

-부산지방법원 2019.11.22 2019나2893

-수원지방법원 2017.05.12 2016나14598