(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.01.15 2019나51405

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) 광주지방법원 2020.01.15 2019나51405

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, via D introduced by C, entered into a contract for the supply of goods with the Defendant for the supply of an agrochemical of KRW 18,000 km to KRW 33,300,000,000. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the price on the day following the delivery date. The Plaintiff delivered the above margin to the Defendant around November 24, 2015. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 27,000,000 to the price of goods with the above margin on November 26, 2015 does not conflict between the parties.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the goods price of KRW 6,300,000 to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the price of the above white paper from KRW 33,300,000 to KRW 27,000 on the grounds that there was a defect in the above white paper supplied by the Defendant’s assertion. Since the Defendant paid the full amount of the price of the goods under the above agreement, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the price of the additional goods.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to reduce the price of the above white paper from KRW 33,00,000 to KRW 27,00,000, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings as to the testimony by the witness D of the first instance trial, witness C of the trial, and witness E of the trial party, and the witness E of the trial party, the Defendant is not obliged to additionally pay the price of the goods.

① The Defendant made an objection on the ground that there was a defect in the white paper supplied by the Plaintiff, and D and C visited the Defendant and confirmed the state of rice. It seems that there was a part less than the intention of the Plaintiff’s delivery in the white paper supplied.

② The Defendant demanded a reduction on the grounds that an additional work is needed, such as studios, and C and D delivered the Defendant’s intent to the Plaintiff.

(3) C and D shall be reduced by actual operators E and reduction.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.01.15 2019나51405

-대구지방법원 2015.07.02 2015나555

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.26 2016가합510919

-서울민사지법 1993. 4. 28. 자 92타경3688 결정 : 확정

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.17 2019가단12877