logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.12.20 2018나60029
매매대금
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 first instance court.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The plaintiff is a corporation that runs the wholesale and retail business in Ansan, and the defendant is a person who operates an Ansan Won in the trade name of "B".

(2) On January 3, 2017, the Defendant agreed to be supplied with the Plaintiff with an internal test, etc., and settled KRW 1,300,50 in advance as the price for the goods to the Plaintiff.

(3) On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with 12 goods, including a model name Lux Lux LloK (309), and 25 goods, including a model name Canaon boon (SV-301) equivalent to KRW 2,218,50 on April 24, 2017.

The sum of the said 37 goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 3,406,50.

(4) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,106,00 after deducting the amount of KRW 1,300,50,000 that was paid in advance at KRW 3,406,50.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) on February 25, 2017, the defendant was supplied with goods equivalent to KRW 1,188,000 from the plaintiff, including the Model Lux LloK (309). The above transaction is the last transaction with the plaintiff.

(2) On April 24, 2017, the Defendant did not receive 25 services, including the model name Canaon boon (SV-301) claimed by the Plaintiff.

However, during the period between March 2017 and April 2017, the defendant visited the defendant's store with the goods, but only the defendant refused to sell goods from C.

2. It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a b,218,50 won for the reasons stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 only on April 24, 2017, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(C) The statement of “C” is also consistent with the Defendant’s argument. Of the evidence Nos. 5, the home delivery receipt of February 24, 2017 among the evidence No. 5 appears to be the receipt of the Plaintiff’s goods supplied on February 25, 2017. Of the evidence No. 5, the home delivery receipt of March 3, 2017, among the evidence No. 5, appears to be irrelevant to the supply of the goods of April 24, 2017 (the home delivery receipt of February 24, 2017, is equivalent to KRW 47 through 216,000, or is equivalent to KRW 47.

arrow