logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.10.24 2014가단20014
의약품매매대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 43,447,940 as well as 20% per annum from May 17, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a pharmacist who operates a pharmacy with the trade name “C pharmacy” from October 19, 2012 to “C pharmacy.”

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a transaction agreement on the supply of drugs around April 2013. The Plaintiff supplied drugs to the above pharmacy until March 2014, and the price of the goods reaches KRW 43,447,940.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap Nos. 1-5 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 43,447,940 won for the above goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 17, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case.

3. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant only lent his name, and did not actually take part in the operation of the above pharmacy. In the case of the above goods, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's employee D, without being supplied with the above medicine, forged the relevant documents as if the medicine was supplied at the above pharmacy, thereby cutting off the sales performance of the pharmaceutical company's employees or cutting off the medicine. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.

Comprehensively taking account of the written evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers) and the overall purport of the pleading in witness D’s testimony, E exercises practical authority over the text and settlement of medicine in the operation of the above pharmacy under the Defendant’s permission, and the Defendant sent phone to D who is the Plaintiff’s employee on two occasions, including early 2013 and early 2014, and asked the Plaintiff about the amount of the price of the goods to the above pharmacy. During this process, D, upon prior request from E, is correct in the actual amount of the goods.

arrow