(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.03 2016나9115 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2016.11.03 2016나9115

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. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 2015, the Defendant entered into a franchise agreement with the Nonparty Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “regular typhoid”), which runs the franchise business of the trade name, “fluorial straw,” and remitted KRW 2,00,000 to the due typhoid to the goods deposit, and then the brush operated the C store business.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a food materials supply contract with due Mad Co., Ltd., and received KRW 2,00,000,000, which the Defendant remitted from due Mad Co., Ltd. to the goods deposit.

C. The Plaintiff received an order of food materials from static Fur, supplied them to the Defendant on credit, and received the payment of food materials from the Defendant from time to time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the grounds for the claim, the facts that the Plaintiff supplied food materials to the Defendant by September 5, 2015, and that the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,238,000 out of the price of goods on credit to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2,238,000 won for the unpaid goods and damages for delay.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff paid 238,000 won as the price of the goods.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the defendant can be found to have remitted KRW 238,00 to the plaintiff on April 26, 2016. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is with merit.

B. The defendant's assertion of offset 1 party asserts that the defendant paid 2,000,000 won as the deposit for the goods to Majin, and that the plaintiff received this, so if the defendant's claim for the refund of the deposit is offset against the plaintiff's claim for the refund of the deposit for the goods, the defendant does not have any obligation

As to this, the plaintiff is against the defendant's due diligence.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.02.13 2017가단220512

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.12.22 2015가단3787

-수원지방법원 2020.02.12 2019나63041

-대구지방법원 2016.02.04 2015나300606

-청주지방법원 2015.07.09 2014나12165