(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.06.14 2015가단33958

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) 광주지방법원 2016.06.14 2015가단33958

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff KRW 78,557,100 and 6% per annum from December 2, 2014 to December 23, 2015.

Reasons

1. The following facts of recognition may be acknowledged by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8.

On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods with the Defendant U2Sene Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

At the time, the plaintiff and the defendant company confirmed that the amount of the goods that was not paid up to that time is KRW 73,367,600, and agreed to pay the total amount of the goods in cash on the 25th of the following day of the supply.

B. On the same day, Defendant A guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay for the said goods to the Plaintiff.

C. After the conclusion of the above goods supply contract, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with the goods equivalent to KRW 37,454,010,000, and the Defendant Company paid the goods amounting to KRW 32,264,510 until December 2014.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 78,557,100 won for the goods unpaid (=73,367,60 won + 5,189,50 won (=37,454,010 won – 32,264,510 won)) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from December 2, 2014 to December 23, 2015, which is the final delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and from the following day to the date of full payment, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. As to this, the defendant company argued to the effect that the defendant company was unable to comply with the plaintiff's claim of this case since it suffered losses exceeding the amount payable due to defects in the contact sealing supplied by the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the defendant company. Thus, the above argument by the defendant

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-상법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.12.05 2014가합1591

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.23 2014가합10080

-대전지방법원서산지원 2017.11.28 2016가단5544

-수원지방법원 2016.03.17 2015가단51872

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.09.22 2016가단11211