logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단44994
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from November 6, 2012 to April 27, 2017.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: KRW 29,129,387 (i.e., total amount of KRW 39,129,387 loans, total of KRW 40,000,000, total of the amount of unpaid goods related to Cheongju Island - Total of KRW 50,000,000 out of the Defendant’s trading ledger) and damages for delay should be paid to the Plaintiff.

(1) The last supply date of the specification of transactions by the head of the trading office is May 13, 2012, and the total amount of the goods unpaid on the basis of the date is KRW 61,129,387.

Since the defendant repaid KRW 22,00,000 on November 5, 2012, the balance is KRW 39,129,387.

(2) On June 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant paid KRW 50,000,000 in total to the Plaintiff on April 21, 2009 (= KRW 30,000,000 on October 21, 2011).

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the purchase price of the goods that the Plaintiff asserted cannot be trusted, and even if exist, the full completion of the statute of limitations expired.

The amount borrowed from the plaintiff is not more than 40,000,000 won, but only 35,000,000 won.

Plaintiff

It is reasonable to pay KRW 22,00,000 and KRW 50,000, as argued.

2. Determination

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the claim amount of this case includes both the amount of unpaid goods and the loan.

However, loans claims are limited to:

As seen in the paragraph, it is deemed that all of the claims have already been extinguished due to repayment, so this article examines only the existence of claims for the amount of unpaid goods.

(2) There is no dispute, or according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap 1 through 7, it is possible to find out the following several circumstances supporting the plaintiff's assertion.

In other words, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a long period of Cheongju from 1990 to May 13, 2012, as a person who runs Cheongju wholesale business.

② The Plaintiff’s transaction ledger (hereinafter “the trading ledger”) stating the details of long-term supply.

arrow