logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.09.21 2016나53398
물품대금
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions of some contents, thereby citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. The part of the judgment of the first instance court Nos. 3, 20 to 21 states that “(1) is not the Plaintiff.” The part of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows. 1) is an enterprise operated independently by the Defendant C. The Plaintiff was engaged in cosmetics only with the Defendant C until the closure of the business. Accordingly, Defendant B is irrelevant to the cosmetics price incurred until November 26, 2007, which was closed. Furthermore, since the Plaintiff concluded a cosmetics sales agency contract with F and traded with the same company after the establishment of F, there is no reason to pay the cosmetics price generated after November 19, 2007.”

(b) The part of “the confirmation of the price of cosmetics and loans, and the premium of large payments,” as stated below, shall be written from the last 5th to 6th 19th am of the first instance judgment.

The outstanding amount by February 8, 2007: 18,521,100 won as stated in the text message sent by Defendant B to the Plaintiff is identical to the amount stated in Defendant C’s Meb, and the Defendants also acknowledged the outstanding amount during the investigation process.

As to this, Defendant C asserts that he stated the outstanding amount at the time of investigation without properly knowing it.

However, the defendant C, on January 2007, adjusted the amounts receivable directly to the plaintiff and about 180 million won in the course of investigation.

It seems that the above defendant, who arranged the outstanding amount with the Plaintiff directly until January 2007, stated that he was aware of the outstanding amount (No. 14-4) and the outstanding amount.

arrow