logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.02.17 2020나23068
정산금청구
Text

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants’ failure in excess of the amount ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates the clothing wholesale and retail business, and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company that conducts the business of manufacturing clothes, raw materials, and subsidiary materials, and Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. On February 15, 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff under the responsibility of the Defendant Company on the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s processing instruction and the required quality, and supplied the said product to the Plaintiff within the agreed period of time, and the Defendant Company concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff to receive the price of the goods agreed upon by the Plaintiff, and on the same day, the Defendant Company paid 30 million won (including value added tax) in total of KRW 40 million (including KRW 40 million, KRW 10 million,000, KRW 150 million,000, KRW 1500,000,000, KRW 200,000 within the total payment period of KRW 150,000,000, KRW 400,000,000 within the total payment period of KRW 1509,000,000,000,000,000).

(c)

The Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant Company on February 15, 2019 according to the instant sales contract. On February 18, 2019, the Plaintiff sent the instant order for work on the requirements of the specifications, quality, etc. of the anti-sale Rots, and paid KRW 110 million, respectively.

(d)

After having received samples from the Defendant Company from the Defendant Company for the test and inspection thereof, on April 4, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant Company a notice of quality inspection, which contains the content of demanding the delivery of goods by the due date, in compliance with the conditions indicated in the work instruction, since defective quality occurred as a result of sampling inspection conducted by the Defendant Company.

E. The defendant company is the first.

arrow