(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.09.07 2018나200519

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) 의정부지방법원 2018.09.07 2018나200519

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The network D supplied the Defendant, who engages in bedclothes sales business under the trade name of “F” with the trade name of “E”.

② The network D traded with the Defendant by July 20, 2013. At the time, the unpaid amount was KRW 14,680,400.

Since January 28, 2014, the remainder of the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 500,000 on March 11, 2014, KRW 500,000 on March 11, 2014, and KRW 500,00 on April 23, 2014, became KRW 13,180,40 on the remainder of the remainder.

③ The network D died on April 9, 2016, and Plaintiff B, the wife of the network D, succeeded to the network D.

④ Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 13,180,400 to the Plaintiffs, who are the deceased’s inheritors, in proportion to their shares of inheritance.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts that D’s judgment network on the cause of the claim delivered goods to the Defendant by June 10, 2013, there is no dispute between the parties, and according to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the fact that the unpaid goods amounted to 14,754,500 as of June 10, 2013, and the fact that the network D’s death on April 9, 2016, the Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B, his children, who were the deceased wife, succeeded to the network D’s wife.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the deceased D's inheritors the unpaid price for the goods according to their shares of inheritance to the plaintiffs, except in extenuating circumstances.

[Plaintiff asserts that the network D supplied goods to the Defendant by July 20, 2013 beyond the above recognition scope. However, the details of transactions in the transaction list (part of the evidence No. 3 and the evidence No. 5) dated July 20, 2013 are merely those prepared by Plaintiff A at will, and there is no signature or seal of the Defendant in the above transaction statement, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact of transactions as of July 20, 2013, and there is no other evidence to support it. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ assertion that exceeds the above recognition scope is rejected.

1 The defendant, on June 10, 2013, made a decision on the statute of limitations defense, is the goods to the defendant.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.11.17 2017가단7564

-부산지방법원 2017.05.11 2016가단353216

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.01.16 2014가합52490

-서울남부지방법원 2017.10.17 2016가단255273

-대전지방법원 2019.01.24 2017가합107876