logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.08 2013가합11237
물품대금
Text

1. As to KRW 113,850,00 and KRW 69,300,00 among the above money and KRW 113,850,000, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 44,50,000.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of computer and parts wholesale business, retail business, etc., and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of online advertising and software development business.

B. The Plaintiff has supplied the server system to the Defendant since 2003. As the Plaintiff and the Defendant have continuously increased transactions, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have concluded a goods supply contract on February 21, 2007 and have engaged in transactions. Article 3 of the above contract provides that “The Plaintiff shall deliver the date of designation according to the Defendant’s separate order form.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s primary cause of claim 1) - The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 113,850,000 (=32,175,000) through A, a staff member in charge of the Defendant, to pay KRW 32,175,00 on October 25, 2012, the server system equivalent to KRW 37,125,000 on October 31, 2012, and the server system equivalent to KRW 44,550,00 on November 9, 2012.

B) Even if the Plaintiff did not have the right to place an order against A, who is the employee of the Defendant requesting the Plaintiff, even if he did not have the right to place an order, the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff had the right to place an order, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff in accordance with the doctrine of representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

Even if the defendant is the employer of A, and is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred to the plaintiff with respect to the execution of the affairs of A pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act.

arrow