logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.17 2014가단39006
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 8, 2012, ESN Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EN”) ordered the Plaintiff to place an order for the goods indicated in attached Form 1.

B. On June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant with the supply amount of KRW 49,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) as indicated in attached Form 2 (hereinafter “instant goods”).

C. On July 27, 2012, the Defendant supplied the instant goods to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff supplied them to E.S.

On the other hand, E.S. supplied the instant goods to USF. However, USF refused to receive the instant goods on the ground that there is any breakdown or other information about the products supplied as the RMT Services (RE Mamte Poc Group Report and Remote Technology Support Services) is not provided by the remote control method.

ESN again rescinded the contract with the Plaintiff for the supply of the goods described in the foregoing paragraph.

E. From December 5, 2012 to June 26, 2013, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 29,752,000 to the Defendant as the price for the instant goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim is 1) The instant goods are products sold by Brocade, which are manufacturers, for the purpose of carrying out India ITRS. According to the guarantee of the said goods at the time of sale, the goods sold for the purpose of Brocade are provided to the ICR only for the first time registered buyer with respect to the goods sold for the purpose of Brocade, and the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and the United States Armed Forces in Korea, who purchased the goods prior to that provision, are not provided with free repair and RMT services. 2) The Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with incomplete equipment excluded from RM services. The instant goods supply contract by delivery of a duplicate of the instant collection.

arrow