logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.11.26 2015가단30566
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, who operated a restaurant “C”, prepared the following documents with respect to the price of the refined land supplied by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff who operated the refined land.

From March 2005, the promise is to perform the obligation.

(69,000,000). (b)

From June 9, 2005 to June 20, 2008, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff KRW 2,700,000 in total.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of KRW 66,300,000 (=69,000,000- 2,700,000) and damages for delay.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the three-year extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code has expired from June 2008, and the above goods price obligation has expired.

According to the above facts, since the above claim for the price of goods is a claim for the price of goods sold by the merchant, the extinctive prescription period is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, and three years have passed from June 21, 2008, and the above claim was filed for the payment order of this case and the extinctive prescription has already expired.

As such, the defendant's argument is reasonable.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that since the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,700,000 to the Plaintiff as seen earlier and the obligation for the above goods was converted into a general obligation, it shall be terminated by prescription for ten years. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone is difficult to deem that the above goods price claim lost its nature as a claim for the goods sold by the merchants. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

arrow