logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.11.18 2015나6272
물품대금보증금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that "only the video of No. 5" of No. 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance referred to in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is "only the video of No. 5 and No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the result of an order to submit financial transaction information to corporate banks of the court of first instance to the company bank of the court of first instance." The plaintiff's assertion added in the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance

2. Determination as to the assertion added in the trial

A. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant sent a text message to G, the representative director of the Plaintiff, promising to repay the price of goods. This is interpreted as the Defendant’s joint Defendant C’s obligation to pay the price of goods jointly with each other. Even if it is not so, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the price of goods ought to be deemed to have been promised to pay the price of goods to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is liable to pay the price of goods unpaid to the Plaintiff.

나. 판단 살피건대, 갑 제8호증의 영상 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 피고가 2014. 9.경 원고 대표이사 G에게 “반갑습니다. 본의 아니게 힘들게 해드렸군요. 죄송합니다. 항상 웃는 낯으로 뵙고 싶었는데. 그래도 사랑합니다. 꼭 빠른 시간에 갚을게요. 사장님하고 아무런 감정도 없습니다”는 내용의 문자메시지를 보낸 사실은 인정된다.

However, the time when the Defendant sent the above word to the Plaintiff was filed by the instant lawsuit and the Defendant submitted a written reply denying the obligation to pay the goods. In light of the fact that the Defendant consistently denies the obligation to pay the goods even after sending the above text message, the Defendant will concurrently accept C’s obligation to pay the goods to the Plaintiff on the sole basis of the above fact of recognition.

(2) shall not be deemed to be a party.

arrow