(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나2309

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나2309

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The Defendant’s responsible Plaintiff, “B,” at the Defendant’s request, engaging in tin works, etc. with the trade name, supplied the Defendant with the supply price of 9,801,00 won of the goods made of stone around June 2015. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 4,130,000 out of the above KRW 9,801,00, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 5,671,00 to the Plaintiff. There is no dispute between the parties.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,671,00 for the unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 26, 2015 to the date of full payment as requested by the plaintiff, following the service of the original copy of the instant payment order, as requested by the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that "the price of the goods supplied by the plaintiff was set at a higher level than that of the goods actually distributed by the plaintiff, and there was a defect in the goods. Accordingly, the defendant also did not receive five million won out of the construction price from the owner and the contractor. Therefore, the plaintiff may not claim against the defendant about five million won out of the price of the goods."

The defendant's above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion.

B. The Defendant asserts that “the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff receive the portion of tin work among C Corporation, and the Plaintiff calculated and did not perform the construction by settling the interest to the Defendant after the completion of the tin work.” Meanwhile, the Defendant brought about KRW 3,294,200 in connection with the said tin work, and did not pay it to the Defendant even though the Plaintiff agreed to bear the expenses. Therefore, the said KRW 3,294,200 should be deducted from the price of the unpaid goods.”

It is not sufficient to admit the defendant's above assertion with only the descriptions or images of evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3...

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.03.24 2013가단5395

-인천지방법원 2020.08.27 2017가단256506

-대구지방법원 2015.12.17 2015나5826

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.06 2018가단4802

-서울서부지방법원 2021.02.09 2019나32945