(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나52450

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) 창원지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나52450

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

purport.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the wholesale and manufacturing business of steel materials, and the Defendant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing air control devices and automobile parts.

B. From December 20, 2013 to December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant supplied parts of the Plaintiff’s special lecture (S45C returned, etc.) to the Defendant, and the Defendant traded by way of paying the price after receiving the goods.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 8, Eul's evidence 3 and 4 (if there are various numbers, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff supplied parts with special lectures from around December 20, 2013 to December 22, 2014 to the Defendant, but did not receive the price of the goods. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the unit price for the goods supplied from November 19, 2014 was double the existing unit price for the goods supplied under the condition that the Defendant accepted the goods at the time when the Defendant did not pay the price for the part. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 30,087,072 and the damages for delay thereof. 2) As such, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff supplied the goods supplied to the Defendant as special lectures to the Defendant, as evidence, is either internal documents or issues, and the transaction statement (Evidence No. 1) is not reliable, and even if based on the transaction statement, the part that the Defendant agreed to set the unit price at a higher price than the existing one of the parties’ claim for the difference between the goods and the existing amount of 19,14.

B. 1) First of all, we examine whether there is a belief of the Customer Director (Evidence A No. 1) and the Statement of Transactions (Evidence A No. 4).

Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the overall purport of arguments are as follows.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.04.08 2015가단84138

-창원지방법원 2014.08.21 2013가합6117

-의정부지방법원 2015.12.07 2015고정1909

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2016.01.07 2015고단737

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2021.01.21 2019가단3567