(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.05.29 2014나13656

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.05.29 2014나13656

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff supplied food materials, etc. to the Defendant, who was engaged in food food processing business under the trade name of “F,” while engaging in food miscellaneous retail business.

B. The Defendant does not pay 30,347,150 won for the remainder of the goods up to the present day despite having been supplied with food materials, etc. from the Plaintiff by March 17, 2011, and paid 300,000 won on the day. The Defendant is obligated to pay the price for the goods and the delay damages.

2. Determination

A. The defendant, from November 2005, operated a food processing company with the trade name "F" in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu. According to the Gap evidence No. 2 (business registration certificate) for a certain period, the defendant's business registration certificate was issued on or around May 2007.

Plaintiff

There is no dispute between the parties to the fact that food materials, etc. have been supplied by the side.

B. However, with respect to whether the party who supplied food materials, etc. to the Defendant at the time is the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize it only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (Transaction Nos. 1 and 2). (In accordance with the entries of the evidence Nos. 1 (Transaction Nos. 1), the supplier is “(D)” with the address in Mapo-gu Seoul, and the Plaintiff appears to be the representative of the above company.)

Even if the supplier is deemed the Plaintiff as the individual, according to the evidence No. 3, the Defendant may acknowledge the fact that the above “F” was closed on April 20, 2010, and according to that, the price for the goods alleged by the Plaintiff was incurred prior to the above date. However, the instant lawsuit was filed only before March 14, 2014, which was later three years thereafter, in the instant case where it is evident in the record that the said claim for the price for the goods was extinguished by prescription prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act.

I would like to say.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's assertion on March 17, 201 shall be finally made.

참조조문

-민법 제163조 제6호

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.04.08 2014가단98690

-인천지방법원 2020.09.23 2020가단260

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.11.10 2016가단11224

-대전지방법원 2016.05.31 2015가단22660

-서울동부지방법원 2015.11.18 2014가단53913