(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.16 2018가단15556

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 2019.04.16 2018가단15556

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a transaction agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant that the Plaintiff would be supplied with a non-living fishery up to KRW 50,000 (hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of goods”), and issued a performance guarantee insurance policy issued by D Co., Ltd. to secure the Defendant’s obligation for the payment of goods.

B. From July 11, 2017 to February 28, 2018, the Plaintiff was supplied with a civilian fishing equivalent to KRW 76,129,500 from the Defendant. From July 10, 2017 to August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 31,165,49 as the price for the goods to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is KRW 44,964,00 (=76,129,500 – KRW 31,165,499) that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant under the instant goods supply contract.

However, since the quality of the private water storage supplied by the defendant is considerably low, the defendant promised to compensate the plaintiff for the amount of KRW 10,000,000 from the price of the goods. Thus, 10,000,000 out of the price of the goods should be reduced.

Nevertheless, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for insurance proceeds with D Co., Ltd. on the premise that the amount of KRW 44,964,001 and overdue interest of KRW 4,014,126 up to May 28, 2018 is KRW 48,978,127. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant that there is no obligation to pay for the goods under the instant contract for the supply of goods exceeds KRW 34,964,00.

B. There is a defect in the civilian water storage that the defendant supplied to the plaintiff.

There is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to reduce 10,000,000 won from the price of the goods for the purpose of compensating for losses caused by defects.

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion is rejected on a different premise.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.05.23 2016가단38189

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.10.27 2015가단17649

-대전지방법원 2015.08.13 2015가합377

-부산지방법원 2020.06.10 2019나57091

-대구지방법원 2016.03.15 2015가단44110