(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.01.25 2016가단4390

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) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.01.25 2016가단4390

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,058,220 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 20, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale and retail business of fiber, and the Defendant is a person engaged in roller sckeing and butt-knife manufacturing and windows construction business, etc. with the trade name “C.” 2) The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with fibers, etc. from around December 201 to December 31, 2015, and did not receive KRW 39,058,220 out of the price.

【Ground of recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 20, 2016 to the date following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order from February 20, 2016 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment asserted that the defendant paid all of the above goods price obligations.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the defendant is found to have settled an amount of more than KRW 80,000,000 by credit card, which is more than the amount paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff, but the defendant makes a settlement with D, who is the plaintiff and other business partners of the defendant, using the plaintiff's card terminal, of approximately KRW 83,80,000 of the amount of the goods to be paid by the defendant to D. The defendant makes a settlement with D by using the plaintiff's card terminal. The fact that the plaintiff agreed to substitute the payment of the goods to be paid by D does not conflict between the parties, or that the plaintiff agreed to substitute the payment of the goods to be paid by D, according to the whole purport of the statements and arguments No. 9, No. 10-1,

Therefore, since the above excess payment is appropriated for the payment of the price of the goods to be paid to D, the plaintiff's counterclaim pointing this out has merit, and the defendant's defense of payment has no merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.09.27 2017나2333

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.11.16 2016가단4413

-창원지방법원 2020.11.13 2019나65297

-서울남부지방법원 2016.11.11 2015가단236831

-인천지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가단76013