logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.11 2017나2059834
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. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The parties' assertion

A. Under the written agreement of the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 409,04,066 (the amount converted into Korean won according to the exchange rate as of May 10, 2016, which was the date for filing the claim for KRW 2,279,559).

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request by the Plaintiff requesting the resumption of transaction after the suspension of transaction due to the defect of goods, knew the meaning that the agreement in this case guarantees the payment of the price for the supply of goods in the future, and prepared the agreement in this case by deceiving the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff cannot claim payment of the goods pursuant to the agreement in this case. 2) The content of the agreement in this case should be interpreted as the meaning that guarantees payment of the price for the supply of goods in the future, and it should not be interpreted as meaning that the Defendant would confirm the amount of the unpaid goods and pay it.

3) The Defendant supplied the goods equivalent to US$ 348,00 in total from the Plaintiff, and paid US$ 264,067 among them. The unpaid goods amounted to US$ 94,844,290 [US$ 83,933 + US$ 1,130/$290 (exchange rate around December 2013)] converted into Korean currency. The Defendant supplied the goods supplied from the Plaintiff to the business partners, such as kimchi manufacturers. The goods defective, the Defendant sustained damages from the business partners to KRW 200,000 ($ 80,000,000, KRW 50,000, KRW 500,000).

Therefore, if the damages claim of the above 200,000,000 won and the plaintiff's claim for the amount of the unpaid goods are offset, the amount of the goods that the defendant has to pay to the plaintiff is not remaining.

3. Determination

A. The agreement of this case concerning the duty to pay the price of goods in accordance with the agreement of this case is deceiving.

arrow