logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.12.09 2016가합101182
청구이의 등
Text

1. The Seoul High Court 2014Na2027218 (main office), and 2015Na2013629 (Counterclaim) decided December 8, 2015.

Reasons

1. The following facts of basic facts may be admitted, either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence of 1 to 9, and Eul evidence of 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), together with the whole purport of the pleadings:

The Plaintiff’s supply of parts of the LED lighting fixtures to the Defendant and occurrence of its defect 1) from March 2009 to March 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff converted the Plaintiff’s household electricity of 100 through 250V to 36V, which is necessary for the occupation, etc. of the LED lighting fixtures to the Defendant under the model name PD240-DA9 of the model name, which is a part of the LED lighting lighting fixtures’ equipment (hereinafter “instant equipment”).

The Defendant supplied the instant devices to the Defendant’s customer. The Defendant traded the finished product with the instant devices or the products containing the instant devices and the instant devices to the Defendant’s customer. (2) From June to August 2011, the instant devices were installed and supplied to the Defendant’s customer from the instant devices to the Plaintiff’s customer, and the instant devices were damaged by hand. The cause was revealed by the Plaintiff’s use of domestic maternity ME-CAP (conden with synthetic resin clad with metal on the surface) as its parts when manufacturing the instant devices.

B. On June 1, 2012, the Defendant, as well as the Plaintiff, on June 1, 2012, shall be Pakistan-Luxembourg Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Pacific-Luxembourg”).

(1) The Seoul Southern District Court 2012Gahap101573, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of damages due to the defect of the instant device (hereinafter “related lawsuit”).

(2) On July 15, 2014, the above court rendered a judgment that “The plaintiff and Pakistan jointly pays 684,786,914 won and damages for delay to the defendant,” on the grounds that there is a defect in the instant devices, etc.

arrow