(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.09.20 2019가단59533

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.09.20 2019가단59533

물품대금

Text

1. Defendant C Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 56,265,00 for the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from May 11, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied Defendant B with an export package or subsidiary material amounting to KRW 56,265,00,000, and issued a tax invoice with Defendant B’s recipient to whom the Plaintiff operated. Since then, the Defendants did not pay the above amount even though they responded to the change of the Defendants’ recipient of the tax invoice to Defendant C.

Accordingly, Defendant B is a party to the supply contract, and Defendant C is jointly liable to pay the above payment to the Plaintiff as a joint assumption of the obligation jointly with the Defendant C.

B. Defendant B’s assertion 1) The export packaging and subsidiary materials supplied by the Plaintiff were to be supplied by C from the beginning. Accordingly, Defendant B is not a party to the supply contract, and there is no obligation to pay the above money. 2) It is recognized that Defendant C’s assertion that the Plaintiff supplied the export packaging and subsidiary materials supplied by Defendant C was supplied by the Defendant C, but the relevant amount should be deducted due to the defect in the supply product, and the remaining amount cannot be paid before the issuance of the tax invoice against the Defendant C.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff submitted a written estimate to determine the claim against Defendant B and received the business registration certificate with the employee F’s signature on the transaction statement after supplying the goods to Defendant B operated by Defendant B, and that the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice with the Plaintiff as the recipient of the supply of Party B may be recognized in full view of each of the above evidence, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul No. 1, and evidence No. 2. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the other party to the contract to the goods supplied by the Plaintiff as Defendant B solely based on the above facts, and there is no other proof.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B cannot be accepted on a different premise.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.25 2014고정8

-춘천지방법원 2015.12.11 2015나2151

-서울북부지방법원 2017.03.31 2016나4806

-부산지방법원 2015.04.30 2014노3799

-전주지방법원군산지원 2016.06.24 2014가단6409