logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.12.11 2014가합7004
물품대금 등
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 221,69,395 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 30, 2014 to September 30, 2015.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant invested money in the Plaintiff, and the Defendant supplied the clothing produced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant continued to engage in the transaction of clothing such as selling the clothing produced by the Plaintiff under its name or upon the Plaintiff’s entrustment. In that process, the Plaintiff acquired monetary claims in total of KRW 1,026,080,154, such as the price of goods and the consignment, against the Defendant, and the Defendant bears the obligation of KRW 804,380,759 with respect to the principal and interest of the loan.

Upon settling the above claims and obligations, 221,69,395 won (i.e., KRW 1,026,080,154 - KRW 804,380,759) against the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 221,69,395 and damages for delay.

B. Monetary claims owed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant are limited to KRW 805,886,508. Here, if the Plaintiff deducts KRW 870,861,716, such as the borrowed money to be paid to the Defendant, and settle accounts for the transaction relationship with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant did not have any money to be paid to the Plaintiff. Rather, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 64,975,208 (=870,861,716 - 805,886,508) and damages for delay.

2. The fact that there is no dispute over the judgment, comprehensively taking account of the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the witness Gap's testimony, the results of the fact-finding inquiry reply to the small and medium enterprise distribution center of this court against the small and medium enterprise distribution center of this court, the plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacturing business of the leather and leather products, and the defendant is a company engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business. The defendant paid 400,000 US dollars and 50,000 won to the plaintiff as investment deposit, and the plaintiff supplied the clothing produced by the plaintiff to the defendant, sold the clothing produced by the plaintiff to the defendant in the name of the defendant, or entrusted the plaintiff to the defendant, and Eul, the plaintiff's employee and the defendant's employee, occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant around September 2

arrow