(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.01.11 2016가단23818

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) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.01.11 2016가단23818

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Claims and defenses by the parties

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacture and sale of food machinery and leisure equipment, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person engaged in the distress processing business under the trade name of “D.”

On April 201, the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied the goods (including the value-added tax) equivalent to KRW 103,630,000 (including a cigarette sterilization and shocking) at the Defendant’s request.

The Defendant paid only KRW 69,900,000 (including advance payment of KRW 20,000,000) from February 28, 2011 to December 17, 2011, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 33,730,00.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment under the Defendant’s defense was extinguished by the lapse of the extinctive prescription period of three or five years.

Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff did not pay the price due to the defective goods supplied.

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not assert or prove otherwise regarding the timing for payment of the goods, and thus, when the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant, the period during which the Defendant’s obligation was due should be deemed to have arrived.

In addition, the claim asserted by the Plaintiff is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years as the “price for products and goods sold by producers and merchants” (Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act). Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the claim asserted by the Plaintiff is complete three years from April 30, 201, except in extenuating circumstances.

However, according to the records of this case, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 13, 2016.

It is clear that the three-year statute of limitations has lapsed before the filing of the instant lawsuit.

(3) The plaintiff's claim is not accepted without examining the defendant's conjunctive defenses.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민법 제163조 제6호

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.11.22 2019나2893

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.11.03 2015가단12318

-수원지방법원 2020.05.20 2019나70629

-수원지방법원 2018.12.20 2018가단1274

-인천지방법원 2017.10.11 2017나6603