(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.21 2017가합2642

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) 수원지방법원 2018.12.21 2017가합2642

용역대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 587,247,33 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 12, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The Defendant is a legal entity that establishes and operates a C Hospital, and the Plaintiff is an institution specialized in clinical tests that requests clinical pathology tests necessary for the diagnosis of patients from the hospital or clinic and vicariously conducts the examination of the relevant body and receives examination fees.

B. Around May 2011, the Defendant entered into an entrustment contract with the Plaintiff and performed the inspection by July 2017. From March 2015 to February 2015, the Defendant was entrusted with only the diagnosis. From March 2015, the Defendant began to be entrusted with the pathology inspection in addition to the diagnosis.

A pathology test means tissue pathology test and cell pathology test for human tissue extracted through surgery, post-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-post

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim does not have any dispute over the fact that the sum of the inspection fees based on the inspection fees and the inspection fees entrusted by the Defendant during the period from May to July 2017, 201, provided by the Defendant during the period from May 2011 to July 2017, constitutes 587,247,333 won and the damages for delay thereof, barring any other circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant operates a hospital, etc. other than C hospitals, and around 2014, the examination of the diagnosis of the above two hospitals was entrusted to the Plaintiff and Ewon (hereinafter “E”). However, C Hospital was entrusted to the Plaintiff with higher portion, and D Hospital was entrusted to E with higher portion.

Because of inconvenience to entrust inspections to each hospital at the two places, the Defendant decided to entrust the Plaintiff with the inspection of the D Hospital at the end of 2014, the prosecutor of the D Hospital at the E (hereinafter referred to as the “E”) and agreed with the above two enterprises.

As a result,

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.09.04 2019나2003620

-수원지방법원 2019.04.23 2018가단537650

-서울동부지방법원 2019.04.26 2018가단131019

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.04.24 2018가단19361

-대구지방법원 2016.04.20 2015나9248