(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.03.30 2016가단45027

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) 부산지방법원 2017.03.30 2016가단45027

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 together with the whole purport of the pleadings:

On September 29, 2010, the Plaintiff engaged in the business of collecting aggregate, etc. in the name of “C” entered into a contract with the Defendant who is engaged in the business of manufacturing industrial machinery, etc. (hereinafter “instant facility”) under which 35 million won out of the said price is to be manufactured and supplied to 48 million won (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid 35 million won out of the said price to the Defendant as a bill, and paid 3.5 million won of value-added tax in cash between December 31, 2010 and January 19, 201.

B. On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document claiming the return of the price already paid on the ground that the instant facility was not manufactured, by content-certified mail, and it appears that it reached the Defendant around that time.

Article 3(1) 1: The ownership of this machine in lump sum payment of KRW 48,00,000 on January 30, 201 of the date of the settlement of promissory note, Section 5 (Reservation of Ownership) shall be transferred from Section B to Section B at the time when the Plaintiff (Defendant) fully pays the machinery costs as referred to in Article 3: Provided, That in the event the price of goods is paid in a bill, it shall be the time when the last settlement of the bill is made in cash. Section 7(Cancellation of Contract) 1) In the following cases, A may rescind this contract:

Where the supply of machinery is not possible due to the intentional negligence of B, Article 9 (where the payment for machinery is not made within the due date) shall be liable to A for all the responsibility when the manufacture of machinery is delayed due to the failure of A to pay the price for machinery to B on the due date.

C. The contract of this case contains the following contents:

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion and development is the same.

유사 판례

-대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2014다88543, 88550 판결

-창원지방법원 2017.02.22 2015가단88154

-청주지방법원 2017.11.09 2016나14677

-청주지방법원충주지원 2016.11.17 2015가단22420

-청주지방법원 2017.11.09 2016나14738