logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.10.18 2017가합387
손해배상(기)등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff was proposed to import and sell whobs under the name of Nonparty E Co., Ltd. with Defendant B’s representative director (hereinafter “E”).

Accordingly, on September 5, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with G operated by Nonparty F to import a certain amount of 300 tons of the head of the 300 tons of the head of the wale and 150 tons of the head of the wale, and paid USD 20,000 as the down payment to

B. After that, the Plaintiff deposited 832,750,060 won in total with the account under the name of E, even before being supplied with the head by Defendant C’s demand, and the said amount was deposited as the “H company” designated by Defendant D.

The Defendants, despite having received the aforementioned payment, supplied the Plaintiff with a low amount of 63 tons of the number of remaining mountain ports (at a market price equivalent to 459,459,000 won) and 100 tons of the head of the Hoba (at a market price of 280,000,000 won).

C. The Plaintiff later remitted USD 327,600 ($ 310,895,676) to the H company designated by Defendant D, and did not receive a head, even though he remitted KRW 46,550,00 to Defendant D as trading fees.

Ultimately, even if the Defendants received the head supply price, they did not have the intent or ability to supply the head of the North Korean Industrial Complex, they conspired to deceive the Plaintiff, and they were remitted from the Plaintiff the head of the tax base price as above.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay 450,736,736 won, and damages for delay, which are obtained by deducting 739,459,00 won (280,459,459,000 won 280,000 won) equivalent to the sum of 1,190,195,736 (832,750,060 won 310,895,6766 won) supplied by the Plaintiff from the sum of the amounts remitted by the Plaintiff.

2. According to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the Plaintiff’s purchase from G, operated by F, around September 5, 2006, of the number of 1, 2, 3, and 2-2, the number of 1, 200 tons, 100 tons, 100 tons, and 100 to 150 tons, of the number of 10 to 150 tons, from G, operated by F, around September 5, 2006.

arrow