(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.10.10 2017나2020164

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) 서울고등법원 2018.10.10 2017나2020164

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. Following the counterclaim filed by this court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, except for the modification as follows. A. This is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence

Along with the two-party seven and eight-party deeds in the judgment of the first instance, “the main office and counterclaim shall be examined together.”

B. The fourth 14th tier of the first instance judgment “Advanced payment” is regarded as “return of advance payment”.

C. The fourth 17th 17th son of the judgment of the first instance is against “the Defendant” to “the Plaintiff.”

The 5th 16th 16th tier "(including each number)" in the judgment of the first instance shall be "(including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)."

2. Judgment on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the volume of AFOAM CLING (hereinafter “main product”) among the components of the instant product from 110ml to 120ml, instead of increasing the capacity from 110ml to 350,000 to 30,000.

The Plaintiff completed the manufacture of the instant product in accordance with the instant contract and the said agreement, and requested the Defendant to accept the instant product from December 27, 2015.

However, the defendant delayed the receipt of the product of this case, such as not designating the place for delivery of the product under Article 3 (1) of the contract of this case. Ultimately, the plaintiff failed to deliver the product of this case to the defendant.

Therefore, since the plaintiff performed all the duty to supply goods under the contract of this case, there is no damages liability due to the plaintiff's failure to perform the duty to supply goods to the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to change the product capacity and quantity after the conclusion of the instant contract.

The Plaintiff entered into the instant contract.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.23 2019가합544869

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.29 2016가합522066

-서울고등법원 2017.11.24 2017나2022115

-서울고등법원 2018.02.02 2017나2062182

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.23 2018나83880