(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.21 2017나6433 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2018.08.21 2017나6433

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is liable for the Defendant to pay the price of the instant goods and damages for delay thereof, as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant transaction period”) from September 28, 2013 to April 30, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant transaction period”). As the Plaintiff supplied stone equivalent to KRW 13,759,196, and did not receive KRW 6,275,725 (hereinafter “the instant goods price”), the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of the instant goods and the damages for delay.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant paid all the price for the goods during the instant transaction period to the Plaintiff.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s other arguments are examined as follows: (a) 1, 2, 1, 2, 13, and 4-1 through 7, 1, 6-5, 10-1 through 3, 12 through 14, 12-14, 1, 3, and 2-1, 10-5, 10-1 through 3, 12-14, 14, 1, 3, and 1, and 2 of the testimony of the witness B; (b) 2.

① The Plaintiff continued to engage in the transaction by processing and supplying stone to C (the operation box of the individual enterprise in the name of “D”). From the beginning of 2012, the Plaintiff began to engage in the transaction with the Defendant established as the representative C, and continued to engage in the transaction until April 30, 2014, which is the last day of the transaction period of the instant case, and the transaction was suspended due to the dispute over the price of the instant goods.

② The grounds for the dispute over which the Plaintiff had suspended the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are related to the erroneous supply or defect of the stone supplied to C or the Defendant (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) in around 2011-2012, and such example as may be known through the witness B’s testimony was ordered by the Defendant, etc., and the Plaintiff supplied “marine” to the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.06.23 2016나4965

-광주지방법원 2016.06.14 2015가단40673

-의정부지방법원 2020.11.12 2019가단116429

-부산지방법원 2019.11.13 2019나835

-인천지방법원 2018.11.06 2018가단2775