(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.10.29 2019나5809 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2020.10.29 2019나5809

물품대금

Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs operate liquefied petroleum gas retail business under the trade name of “D”.

B. Around September 2016, the Defendant registered its business with the trade name “E” and started to operate a restaurant in the store located in F in the time of harmony (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

C. Since September 2017, G and H (hereinafter “G, etc.”) operated a Chinese restaurant with the trade name “I” in the instant commercial building from the end of September 2017.

At the time, G et al. set up the “ECAFE & BE” signboard installed on the outer wall of the instant commercial building and set up an “I” standing signboard outside the instant commercial building, and posted the I’s “I” camera and its publicity materials inside and outside the outer wall. D.

On the other hand, on September 28, 2017, G et al. agreed to be supplied with gas from the Plaintiffs to the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Accordingly, the trade name of the supplier between the Plaintiffs and G et al. is “E” and the consumer name of the supplier “E” and the consumer name of the supplier “Defendant” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

E. The Plaintiffs supplied gas to the instant shopping district from September 28, 2017 to April 20, 2018 pursuant to the instant agreement, and the gas price that the Plaintiffs had not received while supplying the said gas is KRW 2,365,349 (hereinafter “instant gas price”).

[Basis] The grounds for recognition of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of pages), Gap's evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings as evidence as to whether the agreement of this case was concluded between the plaintiffs and the defendant, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the authenticity as seen later, it cannot be used as evidence as to whether the agreement of this case was concluded)

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the agreement of this case between the plaintiffs and the defendant was concluded, the defendant of this case was the gas price of this case and this.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나313210

-창원지방법원 2018.10.12 2018나51888

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.09.22 2015가단50608

-창원지방법원 2018.09.21 2017나59199

-부산지방법원 2015.11.26 2015가단219074