(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2019.10.22 2018가단50234

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) 대전지방법원서산지원 2019.10.22 2018가단50234

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is that, around November 2016, the Defendant (hereinafter “C”) performed a new warehouse construction work on the Eth of Seosan-si, the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “C”) on the Plaintiff. In lieu of paying the construction cost, the Plaintiff’s address in Seosan-si, the Defendant was “H” but was also “I”.

As the goods were supplied to another construction site (hereinafter “instant construction site”), the Defendant asserts that the goods, such as wood, will be repaid later at the said construction site (hereinafter “supply of this case”) and that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the said goods to the Plaintiff, since the goods equivalent to KRW 47,717,120 were supplied to the instant construction site from December 5, 2016 to April 18, 2017.

2. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the defendant shall be liable for the payment of the price for the goods delivered to the construction site of this case as the party to the contract, taking into account all other evidences, including the records in the Customer Director (1), Recording (1) (4 through 6), written notes (10), written estimates (11 and 12), and written statements of each transaction (11 and 12) as they appear to fit for the plaintiff

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant promised the performance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Plaintiff issued tax invoices related to the instant supply in C future, not the Defendant.

The plaintiff asserts that at the defendant's request, there was a case where the tax invoice was issued to C and the delivery was made to the defendant at the defendant's request, but the other company (G) issued the tax invoice.

However, the tax invoice issued by the plaintiff in G on October 28, 2015 and November 25, 2015.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2020.09.23 2019나114711

-부산지방법원 2016.02.03 2015나12694

-대구지방법원 2018.08.22 2017나11238

-창원지방법원 2018.10.05 2018나415

-수원지방법원여주지원 2016.02.19 2014가단3230