logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.12.22 2016가합59521
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,273,91,867 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 22, 2016 to December 22, 2017.

Reasons

The Plaintiff, the cause of the claim, ① A claim for the amount of goods not supplied to the Defendant from around 2015 to August 2016, 2016, ② A claim for the return of unjust enrichment and reimbursement of the amount of electric utility paid by the Defendant in lieu of the amount of KRW 1,140,230, ③ a claim for loans arising from the lease of KRW 7,335,000 on April 27, 2016 and KRW 1,597,467,097 on May 19, 206. The Plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 300,000 to a third party. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,297,467,097 and delay damages therefrom.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the statement Nos. 1, 3, and 7 of the claim for the purchase of goods: (a) the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant on February 17, 2015, and issued a tax invoice for the supply of goods equivalent to KRW 7,213,608,198 as shown in the attached Table to the Defendant from May 17, 2015 to August 2016; (b) the Defendant approved all of the above tax invoice; (c) the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the unpaid portion of the price of the goods until October 21, 2016; and in light of these facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the goods equivalent to KRW 7,213,608,198 as stated in the above tax invoice.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 5,639,616,31 among them, and KRW 300,000,000 is the person who transferred the remainder of the goods. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay from October 22, 2016, the remainder of the goods payment of KRW 1,273,91,867 (=7,213,608,608,198 - 5,639,616,31 - 300,000) and the Plaintiff’s payment of damages for delay from October 22, 2016.

The plaintiff and the defendant are substantially the same company, and the defendant's representative director at the time of the occurrence of the goods-price claim.

arrow