logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.22 2018가합11674
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 213,589,047 as well as 6% per annum from December 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a company running steel wholesale retail business, and the defendant is supplied with steel products from the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff supplied each of the steel products amounting to KRW 30,940,490 on August 31, 2017, KRW 135,345,672 on September 30, 2017, and KRW 30,662,720 on October 31, 2017, and received the return of steel products amounting to KRW 71,540,150 on October 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 215,408,732 (i.e., KRW 120,940,490, KRW 135,345,672, KRW 30,662,720 - KRW 71,540 - 71,540,150) up to KRW 213,589,047 (i.e., KRW 215,408,732 - 1,819,685) from the day following the date on which the Plaintiff received part of the price of the steel product from the Defendant as requested by the Plaintiff to the day following the date on which the Plaintiff received part of the price of the product from the Defendant until March 23, 2018, to the day after the date of service of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that since the plaintiff seized the real estate of the non-party Steel Co., Ltd., the defendant's debtor, the defendant's provisional attachment, it is possible to receive reimbursement from the above company, and the situation where the collection of claims is delayed due to the plaintiff's debt collection activities, the plaintiff's provisional attachment on the real estate of the Sung Steel Co., Ltd. does not exempt the defendant from the defendant's obligation to pay the price for the goods, and the circumstance that the collection of claims is delayed due to the plaintiff's debt collection activities cannot be a legitimate defense against the claim for the price for the goods.

3. Conclusion.

arrow