(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.15 2014가단37480

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) 수원지방법원 2015.10.15 2014가단37480

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,394,701 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from July 8, 2014 to October 15, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who is engaged in the business of manufacturing automobile parts and rolling stock parts in the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a company that engages in the business of developing rolling stock parts.

B. The Plaintiff manufactured and supplied parts of rolling stock equivalent to KRW 47,194,701 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant during the period from January 20, 2014 to February 27, 2014, and did not receive the price for the goods from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 47,194,701 (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”) and damages for delay.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. On November 2013, the gist of the Defendant’s argument is that the Plaintiff falsely entered the price of the part of the “ABB” into KRW 33,868, which is the original contract unit price and received the Defendant a total of KRW 13,114,140 which is higher than that of the original contract unit price. The above excessive amount paid was paid by mistake. Since the above excessive amount was paid by mistake, the Defendant is obligated to return the above excessive amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to offset the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase of the goods in this case and the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the Plaintiff’s statement No. 9, and No. 4, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff and the representative director of the Plaintiff were the husband in the course of trading the goods in this case and that Nonparty 3,114,140, and Nonparty 4, the actual operator of the business operated by the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving Nonparty 3, etc.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.01.31 2018나2024156

-대구지방법원 2016.11.11 2015가단30265

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.04.27 2016가합73507

-청주지방법원 2015.10.06 2014나10237

-수원지방법원 2018.11.29 2017가단27033