logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.04.16 2012가단73749
손해배상(기) 등
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,375,840 as well as 20% per annum from April 17, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. The status of the parties concerned is ordered by the manufacturing company that manufactures synthetic leather products to purchase synthetic leather raw materials from the manufacturing company that manufactures synthetic leather products, and the company that manufactures synthetic leather products after ordering the supply of the raw materials to the factory that manufactures synthetic leather products in Korea or China, and then supplies the raw materials to the company that manufactures the synthetic leather products after receiving the delivery of the raw materials. The defendant is recognized in full view of the purport of the whole statement in evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 11, which is the plaintiff's office since October 1, 2009, as the plaintiff's general manager in charge of purchase in the Chinese branch, "Seong-gu, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, U.S., Gwangju-gu, U.S., the Chinese branch office from October 1, 2009, while working as the plaintiff's general manager in charge of purchase in the Chinese branch office, and then retired on June 30, 2012, and there is no dispute between the parties, or the whole purport of the statement in evidence No. 111.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. From October 15, 2010 to the above Chinese office under the order of the plaintiff to produce and supply beer 1,681 c.i.e., "BE LPAD" product at the above Chinese office, despite the fact that the plaintiff was supplied with the original unit of the product at 10,681 c.m. from the factory at 23.5 p.m., the plaintiff was supplied with 1,681 c.s. within 26th day per 1.m., and the difference was claimed by the defendant to excessively claim the price of the product at 4,202.05 c.m. (However, according to the statement of Gap evidence 11, the defendant was punished for occupational embezzlement for the above criminal facts, not for the crime of fraud; b.c., the same applies to paragraph (d) and paragraph (d) of this Article; and the same applies to the case of the defendant from 201 to 200 days to 200-16.27.m.

arrow