(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.12.23 2013가합35890

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) 인천지방법원 2014.12.23 2013가합35890

이득상환금 등 청구의 소

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 112,031,296 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 24, 2009 to December 23, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of cut tools with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business, such as machinery tools, etc., with the trade name of “D.”

B. The Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant, and supplied the Defendant with goods, such as brushers and brushers, produced by Daegu Tech Co., Ltd.

From June 10, 2008 to September 3, 2008, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,968,704, total amount of goods supplied by the Plaintiff several times from June 10, 208 to September 3, 2008.

C. The Plaintiff transferred Endorsement by the Defendant: (a) the date of issuance on November 3, 2008; (b) the face value 35 million won; (c) the check number E; (b) the date of issuance on December 10, 2008; (c) the check number 35 million won; (d) the check number f. the check number ; (c) the date of issuance on December 22, 2008; (d) the check number g. the check number g., the check number g. (d) the maturity 12, Jan. 12, 2009; (d) the face value 3,5 million won; (e) the check number H (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant check and bill”); and (e) the Plaintiff presented and refused payment during the lawful period of presentation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in the case of additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for the price of goods

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the price of goods supplied over several occasions from June 10, 2008 to September 3, 2008, and damages for delay from September 4, 2008, which is the date following the last supply date, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's defense 1 is examined since the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods became extinct by prescription.

The fact that the maturity of the above claim for the price of goods arrives on the date of supply of each goods does not conflict between the parties, and the lawsuit in this case is last.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.12.17 2015나2003776

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.11.15 2015가단5800

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.10.31 2016나1370

-대구지방법원 2015.05.15 2014가합7111

-인천지방법원 2014.01.08 2013고단1946