(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.11.05 2015나5294

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.11.05 2015나5294

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. From April 11, 2012 to March 25, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a stay necessary for the ice package equivalent to KRW 79,810,500 (hereinafter “instant goods”). The Plaintiff received only KRW 35,989,000 out of the price of the said goods.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 43,912,50 (=79,810,500 - 35,989,000) out of the instant goods.

B. The other party who the Plaintiff traded the goods of this case is not the defendant but the non-party Seocho Free Trade Co., Ltd.

Therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay the above price to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine who is the party who traded with the Plaintiff.

According to each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff obtained confirmation of the price of the goods in this case from August 2012 to April 2014 from the defendant's person in charge of the transaction and supplied the goods, and issued a tax invoice to the defendant for the goods supplied during the above period.

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the evidence and the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, i.e., ① the period of issuing the tax invoice to the Defendant regarding the instant goods price exceeds one year, ② the Defendant appears to have filed a tax return on value-added tax based on the said tax invoice, ③ there is no objection against the Plaintiff regarding the issuance of the tax invoice in its name. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the transaction partner who was supplied the instant goods by the Plaintiff is not the Seocho Free Trade Company, but the Defendant.

B. Next, we examine the unpaid amount out of the price of the instant goods.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the plaintiff supplied the defendant with the goods of this case equivalent to 79,810,500 won (including surtax).

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2020.10.07 2019나101517

-수원지방법원 2016.10.18 2015나42091

-인천지방법원 2018.02.22 2017나10329

-광주지방법원목포지원 2019.10.16 2019가단881

-부산지방법원 2015.01.30 2014나7527