(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.02.09 2015가단36999

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) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.02.09 2015가단36999

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a medical corporation with the purpose of establishing and operating the medical institution.

The defendant is a person who sells medical equipment in the name of "B".

B. On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff (the person in charge of the conclusion of the contract is C, the Plaintiff’s agent), and the Defendant concluded a contract for the sale and management of medical equipment (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. In the instant contract, the Defendant supplied MI, CT, and internal border to the Plaintiff, and the supply amount was set at KRW 720,000,000, CT 280,000,000, and KRW 66,00,000,000, both of which were internal cities.

The Plaintiff revoked the purchase of MIM among the medical devices that the Defendant agreed to deliver under the instant contract as a breach of the Defendant’s agreement (the installation period limit).

E. On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a facility lease agreement with the above CT on the cost of acquiring KRW 340,000,00,00 with respect to the above medical device between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, a lessee, for the purpose of the lease agreement on equipment. On the same day, one capital paid the Defendant the amount of KRW 306,00,000 (340,000,000 less the deposit, etc. from KRW 34,000,00,000) with CT on the same day.

F. The instant contract is deemed to be included in the leased goods at the city of the city of the city.

However, the facts are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff had already been established at the Plaintiff’s hospital; (b) the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the lessee, including the leased goods, and (c) the payment of the purchase price from the Gag Capital, which was received from the Gag Capital, including the lease goods; and (b) the Defendant received, and (c) the remainder of KRW 26,00,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 280,000,000, which is the actual lease goods.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 26,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.08.13 2019고단536

-수원지방법원 2016.11.18 2016고합330

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.09 2019가합525714

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.03 2017가합553340

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.13 2017가단5053534