logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.11.22 2015가단36
물품대금
Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 77,694,160 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its amount from September 30, 2016 to November 22, 2016.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract: (a) from the Defendant corporation and the total area of 79,000 square meters, the Plaintiff supplied approximately KRW 790,000 (at least 10,000 per square year) to KRW 395,500,000; (b) KRW 395,500,000 for mother seeds (seeds) and KRW 39,500,000 for the first down payment at the time of entering into the contract; (c) KRW 19,750,000 for the second down payment at the time of the confirmation of mother type; and (d) the remainder within 30,00 through 40 days after the completion of harvest; (d) KRW 2172,50,00 for the remainder after deducting the remainder of KRW 700,00 for the mother type payment; (e) KRW 18,960,000 for the contract to pay the remainder.

B. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, at the time of the instant contract, shall enter into the instant contract, “B/L” and “Agreement on Shipping” (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) On the same day, Defendant C, the representative director of the Defendant Corporation, prepared and submitted to the Plaintiff a letter of contract performance to the effect that “I will faithfully perform the obligations stipulated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and will assume any civil and criminal responsibilities at the time of breach of the contract.”

C. From August 29, 2014 to September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant corporation KRW 28,850,000, KRW 39,500,000, and KRW 10,000,00, out of the second down payment, pursuant to the instant contract, the sum of KRW 78,350,00,00, among the second down payment.

The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant contract on November 4, 2014 and December 26, 2014, on the ground that the actual cultivation area of the Defendant Corporation is less than the area stipulated in the instant contract and that there was a defect in the worship cultivated under the instant contract.

arrow