(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.17 2014가합14806

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.17 2014가합14806

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 95,402,147 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from March 1, 2012 to October 17, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s relationship 1) The Plaintiff operates a business related to automatic Stick labelling with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant operates a printing business with the trade name of “D.” (2) The Plaintiff has supplied the goods, such as the paper, etc. used for printing to the Defendant from March 2004.

B. A transaction report sheet (Evidence A No. 2) prepared by the Plaintiff on the transaction report for each period of time from March 2004 to February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the total amount of KRW 406,254,397 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply). However, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff paid KRW 300,852,250 to the Plaintiff for the same period of time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the determination on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 105,402,147 (i.e., KRW 406,254,397 - KRW 300,852,250) and damages for delay.

B. First of all, the defendant's assertion that there is no credibility of the transaction report sheet for each period of time prepared by the plaintiff 1 to determine the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the transaction report sheet for each period of time that the plaintiff mainly takes as the grounds for the claim of this case is not only unilaterally prepared by the plaintiff, but also that the amount that the defendant

The following points can be known by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the statements in Gap's evidence, basic facts, adoption evidence, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 5, 6, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, i.e., (i) the sales date, items and quantity of sales, sales proceeds, settlement amount, etc. for a period of eight years or longer; and (ii) the plaintiff appears to be a document continuously prepared and arranged in the course of performing his/her business.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.07.10 2014나54610

-청주지방법원 2017.08.16 2017나545

-서울동부지방법원 2015.04.17 2014나5847

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.04.25 2017가단34093

-인천지방법원 2014.02.20 2012나21614