logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.09.13 2017나1934
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in textile manufacturing, processing, etc., and the Defendant is a person engaged in fiber wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “B”.

B. On November 2013, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant for textile processing, and supplied the textile processed from December 2013 to February 28, 2014, and the amount of the goods is KRW 32,869,210 in total.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 5,00,000,000 on December 11, 2013 as the price for goods, and KRW 15,736,069 on March 4, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff did not pay KRW 12,133,141 [the amount of KRW 32,869,210 [the amount of KRW 5,00,000 - KRW 15,736,069] although the plaintiff supplied the defendant with the goods of KRW 32,869,210]. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 12,13,141 and damages for delay.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of the claim for the deduction, the Defendant supplied the fiber processed by the Plaintiff to the Malass Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Malass Co., Ltd.”), and the Defendant paid damages of KRW 38,394,644 to the Malass upon the Plaintiff’s negligence as a result of the defect in the fiber processed by the Plaintiff’s negligence, and the Defendant paid damages of KRW 12,133,141 to the Malass. The Defendant asserts that the amount of unpaid goods deducted KRW 38,394,644 from the amount of unpaid goods would not remain.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1 through 3, and 5 through 8, i.e., "GJM1-JP02" processed by the plaintiff was supplied to Malass schers, and schers schers schers sphers sphers sphers sphers sphers sphers sphers sphers sphers sphers

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Act ("RP") provides ruptures for the purpose of the rupture.

arrow