(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.01.09 2019나206972

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 2020.01.09 2019나206972

물품대금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff received the phone call from the Defendant and supplied 2,704,000 won in total to the construction site of the building site C in Dongducheon-si, where the Defendant was under construction (hereinafter “instant construction site”), and received KRW 500,000 among them.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff supplied bricks to the construction site of this case according to the Defendant’s order, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of 2,204,000 won for the goods unpaid and the damages for delay.

B. The Defendant is merely the introduction of the Plaintiff upon the request of D, the owner of the instant construction site.

Therefore, D must pay the unpaid amount of goods.

3. The facts acknowledged prior to the judgment, the evidence No. 4 and No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: (a) the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to walk the phone and supply bricks to the construction site of this case; (b) at the time, the Defendant ordered the bricks according to D’s request, the owner of the building, but did not speak to the Plaintiff; and (c) the Defendant directly sent the down payment KRW 500,000 remitted while ordering the bricks to the Plaintiff; and (d) the Defendant did not call the remainder of the goods price to the Plaintiff from D, the owner of the building.

In full view of these circumstances, although the Defendant’s internal deliberation intent could have ordered a brick on behalf of D, it is reasonable to view that the instant brick supply contract is a contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, since the Plaintiff did not express the intent to act on behalf of D.

Therefore, the defendant who is a party to the contract of this case is service of 2,204,00 won for the goods unpaid to the plaintiff and a copy of the complaint of this case.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.01.09 2019나206972

-인천지방법원 2019.07.24 2018가단273423

-특허법원 2020.04.10 2019허5652

-광주지방법원 2018.02.06 2016가단5660

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.10.29 2015가합50216