logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2017.07.12 2017가단1055
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s KRW 96,014,726 as well as the annual interest rate of KRW 15% on February 11, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 1, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a bilateral ALC product sales contract with the Defendant. From that time, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a building material, and the transaction was suspended on September 2015, and the price for the goods that the Plaintiff had not received at the time is KRW 9,238,876.

B. In order to receive the price of the goods above, the Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with the Gwangju District Court Net Branch B, and received the distribution of KRW 3,224,150 in the above auction procedure around March 28, 2017, and the remainder of the price of the goods remaining after the Plaintiff appropriated it to repay the principal price of the goods (=9,238,876 won-3,224,150).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 96,014,726, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 11, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 2,775,850 (=6,00,000-3,224,150) more than KRW 3,224,150 as seen earlier in the auction procedure of the real estate rent auction procedure for the real estate rent auction procedure B by the Gwangju District Court of Gwangju District, but the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 2,775,850 (=6,00,000-3,224,150). However, the Defendant’s above assertion is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s entries in the

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow