(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.03.10 2014가단79958

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) 부산지방법원 2015.03.10 2014가단79958

양수금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 38,400,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from September 4, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B, who is engaged in the clothing manufacturing business, was ordered by the Defendant E using the Defendant’s name “C business entity D” to manufacture the Army Cargo 8,000 punishments for the Army (18,150,000 won) on April 3, 2014, and supplied it to the Defendant on April 21, 2014 (30,250,000 won).

B. B requested the Defendant to pay KRW 48,400,000 for the above price of supply, and the Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 out of the above price of supply on May 14, 2014 to B.

C. On August 6, 2014, B transferred the claim amounting to KRW 38,400,000 to the Plaintiff. On August 7, 2014, B notified the Defendant of the assignment of claim by content-certified mail, and the notification reached the Defendant on August 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), witness F's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, B entered into the instant supply contract with E, which is the defendant's agent, and the plaintiff acquired the claim for the price of supplied goods held by B against the defendant. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 38,400,000 won for the price of delivered goods payable to the plaintiff and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 4, 2014 to the date of complete payment as claimed by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff seeks after the due date.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff acquired the above credit illegally for the purpose of debt collection, but considering Gap evidence 7-1's statement and the whole purport of argument, the plaintiff can be recognized as having acquired the credit from Eul for the purpose of debt collection. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the instant supply contract is transaction B and E, and the instant supply contract is between B and E.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.01.24 2016가단6940

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.12.08 2017가합400317

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.12.18 2015가단19591

-광주지방법원 2015.10.23 2015나4937

-인천지방법원 2019.02.13 2017가단235165