logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.04.12 2016가단219654
물품대금
Text

1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 41,80,000 and KRW 19,800 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 41,80,000 from August 22, 2015, and KRW 22,00,000.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 7, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the supply of equipment (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, who is engaged in the mechanical manufacturing business, etc., with the content that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with KRW 99,00,000 (including value-added tax) and received KRW 22,00,000 for the installation cost (including value-added tax).

B. The instant contract received 80% of the price of the instant machinery from the Defendant in cash, issued a payment guarantee letter for the remainder 20%, and then supplied equipment. The Defendant determined to pay the remainder 20% by August 21, 2015.

In addition, the instant contract paid 50% of the labor cost for installation within one month after delivery of the instant machinery, and determined to pay the remainder of 50% within three months after completion of trial operation.

C. Around August 2015, the Plaintiff delivered the instant machinery to the Defendant. On August 11, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 79,200,000 equivalent to 80% of the instant machinery price to the Plaintiff. Around that time, the Plaintiff completed the installation of the instant machinery.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 1 or Gap's evidence 13 (including the number of branch numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the instant machinery and completed installation, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the unpaid mechanical cost of KRW 19,80,000 (=9,000,000 - 79,200,000), the installation cost of KRW 22,00,000, total of KRW 41,80,000, and delay damages.

In regard to this, the defendant only lent the name of the contract of this case to C, but the contracting party is not the defendant, so the contract of this case is null and void, and therefore there is no obligation to pay goods, etc. under the contract of this case to the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, it is true.

arrow