(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.11.11 2015가단236831

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) 서울남부지방법원 2016.11.11 2015가단236831

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,147,90 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from August 7, 2015 to November 16, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in electronic parts, manufacturing business of products, wholesale and retail business, etc., and the Defendant is a person who engages in printing circuit board, manufacturing business of LED lighting, wholesale and retail business, etc. under the trade name “B.”

B. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with chips, etc. from July 16, 2014 to June 3, 2015.

C. Around May 21, 2015, the Defendant drafted a written statement stating that “Around May 21, 2015, at least a minimum of KRW 30 million shall be paid by May 30, 200 or more, shall be paid at least KRW 3 million prior to June 30, and shall be paid at least KRW 3 million on July 30, and shall be paid the balance on August 30.”

The amount of goods unpaid by the defendant is KRW 25,347,90. D.

The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1.6 million on August 6, 2015, and did not pay the price for the goods any longer, and the remainder of the price for the goods is KRW 22,147,90.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, whole purport of pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the goods price of KRW 22,147,90 and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 7, 2015 to November 16, 2015, which is the date of service of a copy of the complaint of this case, from August 7, 2015, which is the date following the last day of payment, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's argument is that the request for the repair of defects and replacement from the customer is offset due to a large number of defective defects on the PE chips supplied by the plaintiff and supplied to the customer nationwide, and that the amount that the plaintiff is liable to compensate for to the defendant is larger than the amount of the goods claimed by the plaintiff due to defective goods return and delivery costs, so the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's

참조조문

-상법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2017.04.20 2016가단5733

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.01.25 2016가단4390

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.18 2015가단5247601

-인천지방법원 2016.05.10 2015가합6728

-인천지방법원 2020.03.27 2017나9466