logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.19 2014가단140722
물품대금
Text

1. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 16,627,500 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 30, 2014 to December 19, 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 9, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) with at least KRW 160,000 in total the number of the small and medium-sized machinery (the model name: L-400 TIN) (hereinafter “instant machinery”).

B. The Defendant Company paid USD 125,000 to the Plaintiff by February 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 and 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

A. According to the above facts, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the price of supplied goods of USD 35,000 (= USD 160,000 - USD 125,000) and delay damages.

B. As to the argument of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company asserted that the Plaintiff was at least 15,000 dollars in the course of negotiations on the instant machinery due to defects in the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was given reduction of USD 10,000 among the price of supplied goods, so the unpaid price of supplied goods is merely USD 15,000.

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company agreed to reduce USD 10,00 among the supply price of goods on July 18, 2012, and the Plaintiff requested debt collection to the Korea Credit Information Company for the purpose of receiving unpaid payment from the Defendant Company. According to the notice of demand for the repayment of overdue payment of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant Company to pay only the remaining amount after reducing USD 10,000 on two occasions, and the Plaintiff stated that the unpaid payment amount was to be paid in a lump sum on the prompt date. In addition, considering that the Plaintiff stated that the Defendant Company’s assertion for the reduction of the amount was to be paid in a lump sum on the prompt date.

arrow