(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.09.23 2014가단25619

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.09.23 2014가단25619

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 64,185,953 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from May 31, 2014 to August 22, 2014.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a total amount of KRW 645,66,061 from October 2013 to May 30, 2014 (a) and received KRW 581,480,108 from the Defendant.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings) the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining amount of goods to the plaintiff 64,185,953 won and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's argument concerning the plaintiff's assertion is based on the unit price unilaterally raised by the plaintiff, and 37,887,167 won is based on the unit price at the time of the contract for the supply of the goods, and the plaintiff also agreed to issue a marina tax invoice in proportion to the unit price at the time of the contract for the supply of the goods, as the plaintiff acknowledged the defendant's damage due to the unilateral demand for the increase of unit price after the discontinuance of the transaction, and therefore the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff'

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant (such as evidence No. 1) is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, around December 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the increase in the unit price of goods (the lower unit price than the other transaction parties) on the ground of the increase in the unit price of goods. At the Defendant’s request for re-consultation, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the increase in the number of goods again, and thereafter, the transaction of goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued according to the increased unit price.

2. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The Defendant asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered several times from April 2013 to October 2013, 2013 on the items, production, and sales methods of the supplied goods; (b) the Plaintiff operated two machines (such as a capsul type roller, etc.) and agreed to supply 3,00 goods per day (a day, including a short heat caps, etc.); and (c) the Plaintiff agreed to sell and provide packaging boxes.

However, the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2018.07.12 2017나25253

-서울고등법원 2015.11.27 2015나2019283

-춘천지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나2635

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.02.04 2014가단1262

-수원지방법원 2020.11.19 2020나1254