(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.08.25 2016가단9873

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.08.25 2016가단9873

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties’ assertion that: (a) around February 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the fishery products equivalent to KRW 28,200,000 to a trade name “B” operated by the Defendant; and (b) received only KRW 4,900,000 among them; (c) thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay from February 10, 2015, which is the date following the last delivery date of the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff only supplied fishery products to his father C, and that there is no transaction with the defendant, and that there is no obligation to pay the price of the goods in this case.

2. We examine whether the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with fishery products.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, i.e., the Plaintiff’s entry “C Return” in the recipient column of the statement of transactions prepared by the Plaintiff; ② the registration of the trade name “B” in the Defendant’s name on March 29, 201 was terminated on September 27, 2013; the Defendant was a minor of 18 years of age at the time of the above registration; the Defendant was serving military service (from October 8, 2013 to July 7, 2015) during the goods transaction period in this case; ③ the Plaintiff submitted a statement to the effect that “I was issued a tax invoice under the Defendant’s name, which is the children upon delivery from the Plaintiff; ④ the Plaintiff’s report on the closure of business registration under the Defendant’s name was insufficient to acknowledge each of the goods supply numbers of each of the instant case (including each of the instant goods delivery number No. 15 months after the Plaintiff’s.

Therefore, the claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff supplied fishery products to the defendant is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is without merit.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.12.23 2014나27750

-의정부지방법원 2017.01.17 2016가단17200

-인천지방법원 2017.09.06 2016가단28513

-수원지방법원 2016.09.29 2016가단19226

-서울북부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단18060