(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.23 2019나71556

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 2020.07.23 2019나71556

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in wholesale and retail business under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant operated the clothing manufacturing company under the trade name of “D.”

B. The Plaintiff supplied direct logistics, etc. to the Defendant from September 2007, and the Defendant discontinued the aforementioned “D” on March 31, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was supplied with direct logistics from September 2007 to February 201, 201, and that the amount of the goods unpaid as of September 13, 201 exceeds KRW 48,306,80 (hereinafter “the price of the goods in this case”). The Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the price of the goods in this case 48,306,800 and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. The following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the overall purport of the evidence and arguments as seen earlier, namely, the Plaintiff’s Customer Director (Evidence A)’s transactional statement corresponds to each transactional statement (Evidence A No. 3) and each transactional statement submitted by the Plaintiff is considerably specific, including the supplier and its counterpart, item, quantity, unit price, and supply value. Each transactional statement includes all the amount of the newly generated goods due to the transaction in question, the total amount of the outstanding amount due to the transaction in question, and the total amount of the outstanding amount due to the transaction in question up to the immediately preceding transaction, and each transactional statement was printed as “200” before 208, but it was printed as “200” from 209, but it is difficult to view that it was forged later. In addition to the transactional practice, the Plaintiff can recognize that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the goods in question.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay 48,306,800 won to the plaintiff for the goods of this case.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.16 2016나17032

-광주지방법원 2018.08.17 2017가단15206

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.11.30 2016가단11624

-광주지방법원 2016.06.29 2015가단42907

-대구지방법원서부지원 2020.07.07 2019가단3824