logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.02.02 2015가단209276
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,602,80 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from May 15, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2, 2013, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation to the effect that the Plaintiff remains 30,602,800 won in advance of the price of goods, while trading goods such as plastic films and interior films, etc. with the Plaintiff.

B. Since then, the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,00,000 on July 25, 2013, and KRW 5,000,000 on August 8, 2013, and KRW 3,000,00 on October 25, 2013, respectively, the amount of the remainder of the price of the goods remaining as of October 25, 2013 is KRW 17,602,80.

C. The goods transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was now terminated.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the advance payment of KRW 17,602,80 for the goods remaining at present and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 15, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment.

3. The Defendant’s defense asserted that the Plaintiff’s purchase and payment of goods from the Defendant by December 2, 2012 constituted KRW 112,860,00,00. The Defendant asserted that the said outstanding amount is offset against the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of advance payment.

The statements in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant's claims for outstanding amount are claims, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's defense of offset is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow