logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.12.23 2015가단32640
손해배상(기)
Text

1. As to KRW 8,238,238 and 238 among the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Plaintiff and KRW 6,316,860 among the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Plaintiff, the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant was on November 1, 2014.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a legal entity that manufactures and exports textile products, and the defendant received a final package of textile products exported by the plaintiff from the plaintiff.

Under the packing contract, the defendant's obligation under the packing contract is compared with the work order sent by the plaintiff to the textile products entered through processing and rolling operations (the paper work suitable for the size and quantity of the fiber) and, in the absence of any problem, it is possible to pack them to the box and then deliver them to the wharf for shipment.

On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to send a work instruction stating that the size of the product “LEAF DES ESG MES P/D WESLIC” (hereinafter “the instant original group”) was “58/60 centch” as the package work of textile products to be exported to Saudi Arabia, but the Defendant packed and loaded the product as it is, in the process of rolling, because the width of the product would be reduced to 55 persons by force.

Therefore, the defendant examined whether the product was manufactured in accordance with the work order, and violated the duty to notify the plaintiff in the case of the product different from the contents of the work order. Accordingly, the plaintiff raised an objection from the purchaser and suffered losses from discounting the price of the product at KRW 27,00,000. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the plaintiff's losses.

B. According to the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5-1 and 2, the plaintiff sent a work order to the defendant on April 10, 2014 by ordering the packing work of the original unit of this case. The work order contains 58/60 "(58-60)", and the defendant received products less than the width specified in the work order from the original unit of this case by packing them to the boxes of 140 x 20 x 50 "(55 in length)" (a).

arrow