logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.01.12 2016나20616
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

purport.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a personal business entity that installs and supplies cingcings, shoess, and fences, etc. with the trade name of “C”. D is a contractor who has contracted the Defendant for remodeling construction on the land outside E and outside two parcels (hereinafter “each building of this case”).

B. The Plaintiff received a request from D for the delivery of parts of each of the instant buildings, such as the strings, shoess, and fences, but failed to pay down payment and intermediate payment out of KRW 22,500,000, which was promised by D, and suspended the delivery.

C. Thereafter, around February 14, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the supply installation of the instant building, such as lurble, sturst, and straw, in each of the instant buildings.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of evidence A of subparagraphs 1 through 4, testimony of witness F of the first instance trial, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,00,000, which is part of the 222,500,000,000, which is the part of the Plaintiff’s promise, when the Defendant completed the delivery of the instant building to the Plaintiff by February 14, 2015. Since the Plaintiff’s supply and installation of the lusium, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 15,00,00 and damages for delay. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant ordered D to undertake all construction of the instant building, and the parties who concluded the supply contract with the Plaintiff are not D, and the Defendant is not the Defendant, but the Defendant did not agree to pay the goods to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) around February 9, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a letter and note to the effect that “the Plaintiff will have paid the installation works?” (b) the Plaintiff sent the account number to the Defendant on February 15, 2015 after the Plaintiff completed the installation works; (c) the witness F of the first instance trial notified the Defendant of the account number to be paid; and (d) the total amount of the payment was 22,500.

arrow