(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.04.03 2013가단81952

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.04.03 2013가단81952

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant estimated to the Plaintiff KRW 21,449,00 as well as 20% per annum from January 4, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Case summary

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs a wholesale and retail business with the trade name of B, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs clothes, beverages, and miscellaneous wholesale and retail business.

B. From February 17, 2011 to January 8, 2013, the Plaintiff handed down to the Defendant’s direct sales store or customer.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap-5 evidence, Gap-7 evidence 1 to 7-7, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. Legal relations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion was ordered by the Defendant and supplied goods to the Defendant’s direct sales outlet or customer.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the price for the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant sold goods delivered by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff at the Defendant’s store and paid the amount calculated by deducting the commission from the sales price to the Plaintiff, and does not purchase the goods from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price for the goods. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion is acknowledged that the Plaintiff received the transaction statement while supplying the goods to the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff entered the balance in the transaction statement in the transaction statement denying the authenticity and the transaction amount and the balance in the transaction statement recognizing the authenticity are consistent with each other, although the Defendant denied the authenticity, the authenticity is recognized in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s statement denying the authenticity; (b) the transaction statement in the transaction statement in the transaction statement in the transaction statement in which the Defendant made the authenticity; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings in

(1) The defendant's employees did not confirm the balance of the defendant's employees in detail and sign it on behalf of the goods. However, the above assertion alone is insufficient to reject the entry of the transaction statement).

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.06.20 2017가합208670

-대구지방법원서부지원 2017.11.07 2017가단51782

-서울동부지방법원 2015.07.15 2014나9580

-수원지방법원 2015.04.10 2014나34567

-서울동부지방법원 2017.11.24 2016가단110711