(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.03.16 2016나8566

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.03.16 2016나8566

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff was supplied with the euthanos from March 2007 to August 2012 by the Defendant. Since there was a defect in the euthanos that was supplied by the Defendant, the Plaintiff sent repair to C, who is an employee of the Defendant, or returned to the Defendant by international mail, from July 14, 2008 to February 24, 2009.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 7,235,00 as compensation for damages for the damages of the above 974.

B. As to the business of importing an internal test from the Chinese factory of “D”, the Defendant was merely engaged in the business of importing the internal test by directly introducing the factory and managing the import business instead of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant did not have a duty to repair the internal test imported by the Plaintiff, and there was no fact that the Defendant received the internal test from the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, since the plaintiff entered into a separate contract with C and accepted the safe test, there is no responsibility for the defendant with respect to the safe test that has not been returned.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 (including each number, if any), the plaintiff can only recognize the fact that the plaintiff was supplied with the sacrife test from March 8, 2007 to July 18, 2008 by the company of Hong Kong located in Hong Kong (it appears that the plaintiff was engaged in the sacrife test or transactions with the defendant via the defendant around 2012 and around 2013, it appears that it was related to the sacrife, etc. located in Korea, and it appears that there is no relation with the sacrife test in this case, and that the entries or images of evidence Nos. 10, 11 (including each number), and 11 are insufficient to deem that the plaintiff and the defendant as the party to the sacrife test contract, and there is no other evidence to support this.

(b)each entry and pleading of evidence Nos. 5 and 7.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.06.04 2014나11947

-대구지방법원 2010. 8. 25. 선고 2009구합2742 판결

-대구지방법원 2019.05.15 2018나307530

-대구지방법원 2015.05.08 2014나20279

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.01 2014나39212