(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.04.21 2019나65392

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) 인천지방법원 2020.04.21 2019나65392

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the purchase and sales of mobile phones with the trade name D.

B. C, on December 30, 2016, opened a company engaging in other communications sales business with the trade name called E, but closed this on June 22, 2018.

C. The name of the original and the Defendant’s respective seal is affixed with the following seal, and the statement of transaction made on September 30, 2017, indicated as KRW 12,872,00, respectively, in the name of the original and the Defendant E, “supplier” D (Plaintiff), “subscriber”,” the Defendant, “supplier”,” “the Plaintiff,” “total amount (including VAT),” and “amount receivable.”

In addition, the name of the original and the Defendant is affixed with the seal and the following affixed, and the statement of the transaction on October 31, 2017, which is written in KRW 11,10,000, the total amount of money (including VT), 23,982,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the statement of each of the instant transaction”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff sold and supplied a used mobile phone equivalent to KRW 23,982,00 to the Defendant by October 31, 2017. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 23,982,00 (hereinafter “the instant goods price”) and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. As to the authenticity of each of the transaction statements of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the price of the goods of this case to the plaintiff in accordance with each of the transaction statements of this case. The defendant asserts that each of the transaction statements of this case was forged by the plaintiff, not by the plaintiff and the defendant or E. Thus, first, we examine whether each of the transaction statements of this case was duly established between the parties.

1 A disposal document shall be duly formed.

유사 판례

-부산고등법원(창원) 2016.05.26 2015나21144

-부산고등법원 2018.09.19 2017누23612

-울산지방법원 2015.08.20 2015나533

-의정부지방법원 2020.10.22 2019고단3987

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2014.12.05 2014고정85