(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.10.16 2017가단5596

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) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.10.16 2017가단5596

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant did not pay KRW 6,469,732 out of the amount of food materials supplied by the Plaintiff from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017.

The defendant is obligated to pay 6,469,732 won to the plaintiff for the unpaid goods.

B. On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff’s return of the balance of advance payment absorbing and merged E Agricultural Partnership (hereinafter “E”).

E entered into a contract with the Defendant to be supplied with the whole quantity of the magys cultivated under the Environment-Friendly Agriculture Act, and supplied the Defendant with 250 kg net and 42 mag seeds equivalent to the total amount of 3,2310,000 won in advance.

If the Defendant deducts KRW 6,982,910 from advance payment of KRW 3,2310,00,000,000 for agricultural products supplied by the Defendant to April 26, 2014, KRW 25,327,090 remain. The Defendant is obligated to return the remainder of advance payment to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. As to the determination of the claim for the payment of the unpaid amount of goods, in a contract where multiple and multiple items are supplied several times as the instant transaction, the parties to the transaction should confirm each other’s details of the delivery of goods. However, each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 12, 14, and 15 (including each serial number) is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff supplied the goods exceeding KRW 30 million that the Defendant had already paid between March 1, 2017 and March 31, 2017, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

B. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that E supplied 20 km 20 g-250 g-2510,000 and 42 seeds with respect to the claim for return of the balance of advance payment on the sole basis of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 10, and 11, as advance payment, to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff's claim on the premise that advance payment of KRW 3,2310,000 has been made also has no reason.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2020.02.05 2018나13040

-서울남부지방법원 2017.01.12 2015가단49433

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.24 2017가단8578

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.02.15 2018가단66763

-전주지방법원 남원지원 2018.05.23 2017가단1036