logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.07 2015나17607
제작대금 등
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures electronic parts, etc. under the trade name of “D,” and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells radio communication equipment parts, and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) is a company that manufactures and sells image and water processing equipment parts at the same address as the Defendant.

B. On June 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant’s representative F on the terms “the Plaintiff would manufacture and supply the part for the satellite satellite receiver (hereinafter “instant part”) to the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

C. On June 18, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C (mutual name: E) with the effect that “C would make and supply the gold necessary for the manufacture of the instant parts (hereinafter “the gold penalty in this case”) at KRW 26.4 million.”

The plaintiff was supplied with the gold punishment of this case from C and completed the test withdrawal at the expense of 6 million won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 3, testimony of witness C of the first instance trial, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of concluding the instant supply contract, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to produce the instant gold paper at the Defendant’s expense.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff requested C to produce the gold in this case and conducted the test run in accordance with the gold-type, the Defendant is obligated to pay to C the remainder of KRW 2.4 million, excluding the Defendant’s already paid KRW 10 million from the sum of KRW 26.4 million for the production of the gold in this case and KRW 6 million for the test run.

B. The party who requested the Plaintiff to produce the instant gold-type to the Plaintiff is not the Defendant, but the Defendant merely introduced the instant gold-type to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

arrow