logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2015.02.05 2013나1177
매매대금
Text

1. Of the main part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods and supply 1) The Plaintiff: (a) the Defendant who produces plastic plastic type products using the plastic type equipment; (b) the Plaintiff: (c) the 15 unit of the “Haseseb”, the power saving machine produced by the Plaintiff on September 6, 2007, is the 267,200,000 won (excluding value-added tax); and (b) the 34 unit of the above “Haseb (Design C)” (hereinafter the above Haseb) on September 13, 2007, is the “this case’s power saving machine.”

(1) The Korea Energy Management Corporation made an agreement to pay an amount equivalent to 1/2 of the electric rates saved monthly by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant goods supply agreement”) in lieu of a subsidy paid by the Korea Energy Management Corporation to an enterprise using high-efficiency electric power saving devices for the purpose of saving energy, and the remainder of the subsidy was agreed to pay an amount equivalent to 1/2 of the electric rates saved monthly in installments by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant goods supply agreement”).

(2) The Plaintiff supplied goods at the end of November 2007 completed the installation of the instant electric reduction devices during the period of sexual criminal release for the production of plastic plastic products in the Defendant factory.

3) The Plaintiff was paid KRW 154,830,00 from the Energy Management Corporation to November 15, 2010 in relation to the supply of the above goods, and was paid KRW 245,560,000 out of the remainder by the Defendant from February 26, 2008 to November 15, 2010. (b) After concluding an agreement with the Defendant on December 21, 2010, the Plaintiff demanded the remainder of the payment to the Plaintiff that “it does not enjoy the power reduction effect of the instant electric power reduction, as it is difficult to conduct a normal business due to frequent breakdown of the said sexual penal period,” and there was a dispute, such as demanding confirmation as to whether the electric reduction rate of the instant electric power reduction period exceeds 20% as initially asserted by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff drafted the following written agreement with the Defendant on December 21, 2010 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

1. B (Plaintiff, below)

arrow