logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.01.28 2014가합2267
물품대금 등
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 201,150,000 as well as 20% per annum from July 10, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff is a person engaged in sales business, such as a shot tablet, etc., and the defendant is a person engaged in the shellfish farming business.

On June 4, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant to the effect that, according to the size of the purchase price, a small paper tag shall be KRW 2,500 per 1 km, and a large paper tag shall be KRW 2,500 per 1 km. When the Plaintiff supplied the new paper tag to the Defendant’s operation farm, the Plaintiff would be paid the paper tag (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). From June 4, 2014 to June 6, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant six times a total of KRW 90,870 g of the new paper tag to the Defendant, and the purchase price of the paper tag shall be KRW 201,150,00 per 10,000 per 1 km,00,000 won per 1 km,00,000 won per 30,005 x 205 g, 305 g, and 305 g of the evidence.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 201,150,000 won for the paper plaques and 20% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 10, 2014 to the day of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff, after the delivery date of the paper plaques to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the defendant asserts that all the paper plaque supplied by the plaintiff is merely a subordinate, and that the paper paper price also requires excessive price than the market price even though he agreed to determine the price at the market price.

B. We examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, and the fact-finding results on the Korea New Gash Association, an incorporated association of this court, and ① the Defendant did not raise any objection against the quality of the lash even after having received the lash six times for three days.

arrow