(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.11.17 2017가단3484

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.11.17 2017가단3484

매매대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,652,975 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from February 1, 2017 to March 21, 2017.

Reasons

1. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the case of recognition, and according to the entries in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is a company aimed at manufacturing business, such as paper World Cup, and the defendant is a company engaged in restaurant business and franchise business, etc., and the plaintiff was supplied to the defendant during the period from December 23, 2015 to January 31, 2017 and did not receive KRW 40,652,975 out of the price of the goods from the defendant, and then did not receive KRW 40,652,975 out of the price of the goods from the defendant on January 31, 2017.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40,652,975, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from February 1, 2017 to March 21, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. As to the defendant's argument, since the defendant reflected the production cost of the gold paper produced for the goods that the plaintiff delivers to the defendant in the price of the goods, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff has a duty to return the amount equivalent to the production cost or gold paper to the defendant.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and it is difficult to view that the expenses paid in order to produce and supply goods are generally reflected in the price of the goods and that the expenses should be returned to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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

참조조문

-상법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.31 2018나60982

-수원지방법원 2018.11.22 2017가단548325

-인천지방법원 2019.10.15 2018나6570

-창원지방법원 2018.05.17 2017나56060

-청주지방법원충주지원 2017.08.08 2016가단24485