(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.12.04 2015나7938 | 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 2015.12.04 2015나7938

물품대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff supplied goods, such as tools, to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 12.47 million out of the price of the goods (the remainder excluding KRW 1.5 million out of the amount claimed by the Plaintiff) to the Defendant, either there is no dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged through the entire purport of the statement and pleading as set forth in subparagraph 1.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc. from July 24, 2014 to the date following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, as requested by the plaintiff, to the date of this decision, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation to pay to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff sought a payment of 1.5 million won of the drawing cost, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a drawing of 1.5 million won only with the statement of 1,500 won, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First of all, the defendant asserts that since 7.5 million won of the goods supplied by the plaintiff were returned to the plaintiff under the pretext of repair request, the above 7.5 million won should be deducted.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant returned 50 Masphers to the Plaintiff as above only with the statement of No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Next, the defendant asserts that the value of the goods supplied by the plaintiff should be deducted since the goods are expected to be returned due to the malicious inventory or inferior goods among the goods supplied by the plaintiff.

However, if the defendant desires to return malicious inventory, the plaintiff was to accept it.

참조조문

-상법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.11.16 2016가단44796

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.22 2018나21011

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.01 2014나39212

-수원지방법원 2016.11.23 2016가단515915

-청주지방법원 2015.05.15 2014가단19523