(영문) 대구지방법원김천지원 2014.05.28 2013가단8713

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) 대구지방법원김천지원 2014.05.28 2013가단8713

기계대금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around June 16, 2011, Defendant C entered into a mechanical sales contract with the Plaintiff to sell one breaking machine for KRW 175,000,000 with the name of Defendant B (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The specific details are as follows.

Article 4 “B” (Defendant side, hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be supplied, installed, and run at a place designated by “A” (the plaintiff, hereinafter the same shall apply) by July 15, 201.

(60 days after the contract) will be delivered simultaneously with the completion of the building.

Article 5. A/S Period shall be one year after purchase.

[Provided, That the part damaged due to the input of foreign material, such as mash or fladg in use]. The warranty period shall be one year after the delivery, and the warranty period shall be attached to a guarantee equivalent to 20% of the cost of machinery of a certified guarantee insurance company.

B. On July 20, 201, Defendant C supplied one scrap 1 (hereinafter “instant scrap 1”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant sales contract. Defendant C concluded a warranty insurance contract with Nonparty C, the insured, at the time of the Plaintiff’s representative, with Nonparty D, the purchase price of KRW 35,00,00, and the insurance period from July 20, 201 to July 19, 2012, with the warranty insurance contract with the contents of the warranty as defect deposit under the supply contract, and issued it to the Plaintiff upon obtaining the warranty insurance policy.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 164,94,000 to the Defendants in accordance with the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Defendant C, at the time of the preparation of the sales contract of this case, could crush the Pma in a size of 20 cm. However, the Pma in fact supplied by the above Defendant is crushed with a size of 60 to 70 cm, thereby crushinging the Pma in a size of 60 to 70 cm.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나10814

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2015.10.23 2015고정500

-창원지방법원 2014.09.16 2012나10915

-창원지방법원 2012.06.27 2010가단46162

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.01.25 2018가합72096