logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.12.07 2014가합1863
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2.(a)

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s primary counterclaim is claimed.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells electric temperature and hot water control apparatus, a component of electric set, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells electric set, etc.

B. On May 14, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods (hereinafter referred to as “instant supply contract”) with the Defendant, which is a component of the electric sets (the model name K1-100, K2-200 (ion number 300), and the model name K1-100, the model name K2-200 and the model number 300, the model name K2-200, and the model name 400, among the instant goods, are only the model name of each customer, and is also the same. The Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to the Defendant by February 20, 2014.

During the above period, the defendant received new goods from the plaintiff and found defects in the goods already supplied, at any time, returned them to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff accepted them and returned them to the defendant.

C. On January 14, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant supply contract on the ground that “it is difficult to continue to maintain the contract due to the suspension of payment of the supply price, the demand for reduction of the unit price of the product, etc.” and notified the Defendant of the refusal to repair the instant product returned from the Defendant before the settlement of the price of supply was made.

Since February 2014, when the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to resume the supply of the instant goods, the Plaintiff re-supplyed the instant goods to the Defendant from February 12, 2014, and led to the transaction relationship in which defective goods were returned from the Defendant.

E. According to the statement of accounts of entry and release (Evidence A) of the instant goods prepared by the Plaintiff, the quantity of the instant goods supplied to the Defendant by November 2013 (including the quantity returned from the Defendant after repair), shall be “the quantity of the instant goods”.

arrow