logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2021.02.04 2020가단55409
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,651,200 as well as 6% per annum from March 12, 2017 to July 15, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. 1) In light of the overall purport of the entries and changes in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied (supply and construction) a door door from August 21, 2015 to March 11, 2017 to a construction site for the building located in Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant goods”); (b) the Defendant did not pay the remainder of KRW 36,651,200, out of the price of the instant goods to the Plaintiff.

2) According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff losses for delay calculated at the rate of 36,651,200 per annum under the Commercial Act from March 12, 2017 to July 15, 2020, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from March 12, 2017 to July 15, 2020, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts as follows.

In other words, on February 9, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase KRW 115,00,000 from Nonparty 5 to Nonparty 115,00,000, the Plaintiff agreed that H, including the construction cost of KRW 33,151,200, which was not paid by the seller to the Defendant, shall be subrogated to the Defendant’s goods payment of KRW 33,151,200 to the Defendant’s Plaintiff. On July 2020, H agreed that H, on behalf of the Defendant and the Plaintiff and H, to repay the Defendant’s goods payment obligation of KRW 36,651,20 to the Plaintiff claimed by the Plaintiff as the instant lawsuit, on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff withdraw the instant lawsuit and agreed that the real estate provisional attachment of KRW 2019,00,00 for the Defendant’s real estate owned by the Defendant would also be exempted from the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff.

arrow