(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.08.10 2016가단302737

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) 부산지방법원 2017.08.10 2016가단302737

물품대금

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(1) The plaintiffs manufacture and supply new products with the trade name stated in the separate sheet in the separate sheet, and the defendant operates a new manufacturer with the trade name of N in the M located in Ilyang-dong, U.S., U.S. and U.S.

B. From May 5, 2014 to August 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs supplied new production materials equivalent to the same amount as the claim column in the same list to P located in Busan Jin-gu (hereinafter “instant products”). The Plaintiffs are new production enterprises whose business registration was made by Q.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant agreed to supply the goods of this case to P, and that the goods of this case are actually supplied by the defendant, so the defendant is obligated to pay the goods to the plaintiffs.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that P is merely a person who received a new delivery from P as an enterprise actually operated by R, and that the defendant did not agree to receive the goods of this case from the plaintiffs or to pay the price of the goods of this case.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 3-2, 7-3, and 11-2 of the evidence Nos. 3-2, 7-3, and 11-2 of the judgment, the fact that the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, KRW 90,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff E on May 9, 2014, or issued promissory notes with the face value of KRW 20,000,000 on February 28, 2015, or paid KRW 10,000,000 to Plaintiff I on July 31, 2014, the fact that the above fact of recognition was found that the Defendant received the goods of this case from the Plaintiffs.

It is difficult to recognize that an agreement was made on the payment of goods.

In addition, as shown in the plaintiffs' arguments, Gap No. 14-2 (Restatement) and Gap.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.12.20 2016가단30455

-청주지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가단19325

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.10.18 2016가단74746

-창원지방법원 2017.02.10 2015가단84244

-부산지방법원 2015.07.17 2014가단233097