(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.04.29 2019나66880

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) 수원지방법원 2020.04.29 2019나66880

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal cost (including the application cost for the return of provisional payments) shall be borne by the Defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the reasoning of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff who runs a furniture manufacturing business, etc. entered into a contract with the defendant who runs a construction business, etc. on or around December 14, 2017 for the supply of a household at the construction site (hereinafter “instant contract”), the plaintiff supplied the defendant with a household worth KRW 14,820,000 according to the instant contract until December 29, 2017, and the fact that the defendant paid KRW 8,00,000 out of the price of the above goods.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,820,00 ( KRW 14,820,000 - KRW 8,000,000) and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant agreed to adjust the price of the above goods to KRW 8,00,000 after being supplied with the goods under the contract of this case (hereinafter "claim") and the defendant, and even if there was no such agreement, the part of KRW 3,60,000 out of the above goods price of KRW 14,820,00 is not liable for the defendant to pay the above goods with the goods supplied directly by the plaintiff to the owner.

(hereinafter referred to as “B argument”) asserts.

First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was the above agreement on the argument by the Defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

Secondly, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was directly paid the above goods priceing KRW 3,600,000,000, and there is no other evidence to support the allegation.

Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 6 and the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the defendant stated that the amount of the unpaid goods, including the above 3,600,000 won, remains 6,820,000 won, to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.08.25 2017가단1892

-서울고등법원 2015.05.07 2014나2037536

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.06 2015가단14109

-의정부지방법원 2018.10.05 2017나8754

-광주지방법원 2019.02.26 2018가단13009