logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원해남지원 2020.06.16 2019가단736
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity established for the purpose of fostering and producing fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms, such as her uniforms, and the Defendant is a legal entity established for the purpose of export and import business and brokerage business, and the incorporated legal entity C (hereinafter “C”) was established for the purpose of opening overseas markets, etc. of her uniforms on October 26, 2015.

B. On June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff issued an electronic statement that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a uniform equivalent to KRW 127 million (hereinafter “instant statement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff and the defendant concluded a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter "contract for the supply of goods") with respect to the total amount of KRW 127 million in total amount of KRW 5150 km as stated in the statement of this case, which is equivalent to KRW 127 million, as stated in the statement of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above price of KRW 127 million in total and delay damages.

B) Even if the Defendant is not a party to the instant goods supply contract, the Defendant is responsible for him and would pay the Plaintiff money, and the Plaintiff is the People’s Republic of China through the Defendant (hereinafter “China”).

(2) The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 127 million equivalent to the above price of the goods and delay damages therefor, since the defendant supplied the whole uniform to D who is an importer, and the defendant agreed or guaranteed the payment of the price of the goods. (2) The party to the contract for the supply of the goods of this case is C and China importer who is a party to the contract for the supply of the goods of this case to which the plaintiff et al. was a party, and the defendant is merely a party to the contract for the supply of goods of this case to D through C, and the plaintiff

arrow