logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 논산지원 2018.01.11 2017가단2437
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 74,903,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from June 3, 2017 to January 11, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who conducts business such as manufacturing and installing a signboard or smoking room in the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant is a corporation that manufactures and sells smoking smoke.

B. On January 3, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the production and installation of smoking smoke with the Defendant (at least 6.6 million won per smoking annual installments, construction period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016) and produced and installed smoking smoke to the Defendant during the period of September 2016 under the said contract (at least 30,000 won per smoking annual installments, construction period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016). However, the Plaintiff did not receive part of the price of goods from the Defendant.

C. On June 2, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff, and at present, the amount of the unpaid goods is KRW 74,903,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 74,903,000 for the unpaid goods and the amount of KRW 74,90,00, which is the day following the Defendant’s final repayment date, to the end of January 11, 2018, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

The amount of the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the end of September 2, 2016, before June 2, 2017, which is the final repayment date of the Defendant, and thus, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim exceeding the above recognition amount is rejected.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow