(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.15 2015가합107531

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.15 2015가합107531

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s decision based on the Seoul Eastern District Court Order 2014Gahap138 dated May 15, 2015 against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 9 and the whole purport of the pleadings:

1) The Defendant filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court 201 Ma125 and received a decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures on October 21, 201, and B was appointed as the Defendant’s custodian (the rehabilitation procedure was completed on June 29, 2015).

For the following convenience, without distinguishing between the Defendant’s custodian B and the Defendant, “Defendant” is called “Defendant”.

(2) On January 3, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff with Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Gahap138, the Defendant claimed that “the Defendant shall pay the remainder amount of KRW 559,657,158 (hereinafter “instant claim for the payment of the price of the goods”) to the Plaintiff from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013 under each drug supply contract concluded with the Plaintiff on April 2, 2012 and April 4, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff with drugs equivalent to KRW 3,025,825,825,315 of the price of the goods, but the Plaintiff paid only KRW 2,466,168,157 among the price of the said goods, and the Defendant claimed that the remainder amount of KRW 559,657,158 (hereinafter “instant claim for the payment of the price of the goods”). From the following day to March 26, 2013.

(3) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay the price for the goods at KRW 559,657,158 in the previous lawsuit in this case, while 78,197,783 out of the claim for the price for the goods of this case was provisionally seized by Seoul National University Hospital, a creditor of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff had the damage claim arising from the delay in the performance of the duty to supply the goods to the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to pay the goods to the Defendant.

B. The instant case.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.25 2016가단88644

-서울북부지방법원 2018.10.24 2018가단3752

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.29 2016가단5021226

-서울남부지방법원 2015.07.15 2013가단75995

-서울동부지방법원 2014.09.29 2014가단13984