logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.24 2015가합2440
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay 20 million won to the Plaintiff the annual rate of 20 million won and 20% per annum from February 25, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 220 million on September 22, 2014, KRW 70 million on September 26, 2014, KRW 140 million on September 26, 2014, and KRW 220 million on October 1, 2014 is not a dispute between the parties. In full view of the purport of the arguments as indicated in the evidence No. 1 (including the provisional number), the Defendant, upon receiving KRW 220 million from the Plaintiff to purchase and sell the scrap metal, such as the H beam beam, trial file, etc., and decided to refund money with the Plaintiff on November 24, 2014, he/she concluded that the said KRW 220 million on November 24, 2015 should be returned by no later than 31, 2015.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 220 million under the above written statement and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 25, 2015 to the day of full payment, as requested by the Plaintiff, following the delivery date of the written application for payment order, as requested by the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant's argument as to the plaintiff's assertion is invalid under Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act because the defendant introduced the plaintiff, who is a scrap metal company, and did not have any contractual relationship with the plaintiff, and each letter (Evidence A1) asserted by the plaintiff was prepared by the plaintiff's coercion despite the defendant's refusal to prepare the above letter, and the defendant clearly expressed that the plaintiff does not have the intent to pay the above amount. This is invalid under Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act because the defendant was aware that the plaintiff, who is the other party, is not the actual intention. Even if not, it constitutes a declaration of intention by coercion, it constitutes a declaration of intention by coercion and thus revoked by delivery of a reply in accordance with Article 110

However, the statement Nos. 1 to 4 (including paper numbers) alone constitutes a defendant's declaration of intention, not the defendant's truth.

arrow