(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가단13937

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가단13937

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On May 23, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of materials (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant on May 23, 2013, with electric wires and cables: The name of the Plaintiff: the scene of the first section of the C Apartment Construction; the delivery period: From May 23, 2013 to July 31, 2015; the supply method: the on-site lower map; the on-site supervision/supervision; the supply method: the supply price of materials by determining the amount of KRW 293,653,424; and the supply of the electric wires, etc. ordered by the Defendant from around that time to the said site is no dispute between the parties.

2. Assertion and determination

A. From April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff

4. Until December 25, 200, the Defendant supplied the electric wires ordered by the Defendant to the above site, asserting that the price was not paid KRW 93,617,275.

In regard to this, the Defendant, upon receipt of a decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures on August 13, 2014, applied that the Plaintiff supplied electric wires upon receiving direct orders from the D Company, the place where the order was placed, and that the said goods do not mean that the Defendant did not place orders.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments, the defendant was decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure on August 13, 2014, based on the evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the defendant prepared a written confirmation of direct payment to the plaintiff around that time. After that time, the plaintiff supplied electric wires after receiving orders from the DNA company directly ordering the plaintiff, and the transaction of the above assertion can be acknowledged as part of the fact, and there is no proof of counter-proof. The plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit, since the goods of the plaintiff's assertion were not ordered by the defendant, and even if the defendant ordered under the contract of this case, it is not clear whether the direct payment agreement was reached between the three parties. However, there is no dispute over this point.

Since the obligation to pay is extinguished according to this, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2015.09.25 2013고단372 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.18 2018가단5128305

-광주지방법원 2015.09.17 2015고단1606

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2019.01.31 2018고단3218

-대구지방법원포항지원 2017.12.12 2016가단9115