(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.17 2014가단48429

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.17 2014가단48429

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Each assertion made by both parties of internal friendship;

A. The Plaintiff’s cause of the instant claim (1) The Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s request, has the same year from August 11, 2014 to the same year.

9. Until December 26, 200, the Defendant supplied the following supplies:

① The first supply: Upon the request of C on August 25, 2014 by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff supplied main supply of KRW 18,263,80 (excluding value-added tax) based on the supply form on August 25, 2014, and ② the second supply: during that period, the Defendant’s main supply was changed, and accordingly, the second supply was additionally supplied with a large amount of main supply of KRW 24,983,600 (excluding value-added tax) upon a request for additional supply made in the process of newly tending the main supply.

(B) The Defendant, at the request of the Defendant, confirmed the act of unauthorized Representation made by the Defendant, including C, and subsequently confirmed the act of unauthorized Representation by the Defendant, even if the Defendant did not have legitimate power of representation at the time of the second delivery. (2) The Defendant ordered the receipt of the delivery document or the approval of the delivery transaction through C, a proxy, and even if there was no legitimate power of representation to C at the time of the second delivery.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) concluded that all of the bank supplies necessary for the commencement of business should be supplied by the Plaintiff to KRW 20 million, and the price of the goods promised as such was paid KRW 20 million.

(2) C is not a representative of the defendant, but only a person who introduced the plaintiff to the defendant.

(3) In the instant case, multiple kinds of delivery documents presented by the Plaintiff as evidence are merely an internal document of the Plaintiff, and do not include documents containing the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. We examine whether the Defendant is obliged to pay the additional goods to the Plaintiff beyond the first supply transaction amount that the Defendant is obligated to pay the price, as well as the second supply transaction.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.06 2015가단45435

-부산지방법원 2017.09.14 2017나2141

-서울동부지방법원 2020.04.22 2018나30841

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.12 2017가단15833

-대전지방법원 2016.06.28 2015가단219839