logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.04.26 2017나50348
물품대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff’s KRW 18,962,240 among the judgment of the first instance and KRW 9,200,00 among the judgment and the Plaintiff’s KRW 20,000 among the judgment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who has been awarded a contract for the gold processing of motor vehicle parts by the vehicle parts by J, K, etc. with the trade name of “D” to manufacture and supply gold papers by subcontracting them from L companies, M companies, etc.

B. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “C,” engaged in the gold-type manufacture and sale business of automobile parts, has been re-subcontracted and supplied by the Defendant for at least ten years from July 9, 2015.

C. As to the gold penalty supplied by the Plaintiff, the Defendant has set the unit price equivalent to approximately 30% of the price of the gold completed product during the past several years as the gold price and paid it to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' arguments and the gist of grounds for appeal;

A. Between April 8, 2015 and July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff produced and supplied each gold-type specified in the separate sheet 1 through 10 (hereinafter “each gold-type” in the separate sheet 1 through 10) on ten occasions, and the Defendant did not pay 30 million won in total. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the unpaid price and damages for delay.

B. Although the Defendant was supplied by the Plaintiff with the gold surcharges stated in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 8, the Defendant is merely KRW 6.6 million in total.

In addition, the defendant did not receive the penalty stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 10 from the plaintiff, and even if the delivery of the penalty stated in the separate sheet Nos. 4, 5, 9, and 10 is recognized, the price is only KRW 5,857,344.

Nevertheless, the court below cited a total of KRW 26 million with regard to the claim for the payment of the price for each of the gold-types in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts as to whether the gold-types in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10 and the calculation thereof.

3. Determination

A. As to the penalty stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 8, the plaintiff shall be the defendant.

arrow