logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.13 2015나32414
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that the plaintiff and the defendant set the unit price of 200 color paper and 200 color paper for each of 84,000 color paper and 91,200 color paper paper for 500 color paper for each of 200 color paper paper for each of the plaintiff and the defendant as evidence submitted in the trial of the court of first instance, and it is insufficient to find that the plaintiff set the unit price of 200 color paper for each of 91,200 color paper for each of the above 91,20 paper paper. The court's rejection of each statement of evidence No. 20, 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that there is no unpaid amount of goods after settling accounts at each time of transaction on the grounds that the Plaintiff was supplied with color paper three times from September 9, 201 to December 8, 201, on the basis that the price of goods was paid to the Plaintiff on the day of transaction. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that there is no unpaid amount of goods at each time of transaction. On January 13, 2012 and February 28, 2012, a total of KRW 115 million per KRW 70 million and KRW 45 million per each time on February 28, 2012.

However, if the amount of KRW 70 million paid on January 13, 2012 is paid in advance for other transactions, the 500 color paper, supplied on January 13, 2012, is not paid in 300 boxes.

In addition, the unit price difference is very large when the money paid three times is the price for the kind of goods transacted on the same day.

Considering the above circumstances, it is clear that there exists the price for the goods unpaid between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the unit price is 84,000 color paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper

B. Determination also requires the existence of the amount of goods unpaid between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Even if the unit price of the goods supplied is the creditor, it constitutes the cause of the claim.

arrow