logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2014.02.17 2012가합803
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 101,519,131 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from April 2, 2013 to February 17, 2014.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. Since there is no dispute between the parties as to the following facts, the defendant is liable to pay the price for the goods and the damages for delay caused thereby to the plaintiff.

① Between March 2012 and April 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant. The Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant on November 27, 2012, the remainder of which was 54,000,000, and the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant on November 27, 2012. The Plaintiff’s price was 25,200,487.

B. The disputed portion: (i) the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the goods amounting to KRW 44,852,916 on February 5, 2013, there is no dispute between the parties.

(2) As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that since some of the goods supplied by the plaintiff were disposed of in the defendant's product inspection, the price corresponding thereto should be deducted.

Therefore, in light of the overall purport of pleadings, the following: (a) around February 18, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that some of the materials supplied by the Plaintiff were defective; (b) on March 5, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the details of the defect; (c) on March 5, 2013, the Defendant notified the specific name, size, quantity, and defective quality of the product that failed to pass a product inspection; (d) the price for the product that failed to pass the product was 22,534,272; and (e) on the other hand, according to the contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to exclude the product that was supplied by the Plaintiff from the quantity to be supplied. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the price for the product that failed to pass the product should be deducted from the price for the product that the Plaintiff seeks.

(3) As to this, the Plaintiff’s product that the Defendant raises an issue is its original nature.

arrow