logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.05.01 2017가단519852
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 22, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s provision of 1 set of 40 million won per unit price to D management body around April 2017, 2017, upon receiving an order from the Defendant Company on February 21, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of goods worth KRW 40 million and the statutory damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

2. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant Company

A. The defendant company ordered the Plaintiff to give the instant e-gropic e-gropic gropic gropic gropic gropic gropic gropic gropic gropic gral

However, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to admit the argument of the defendant company.

Furthermore, even if the owner of the instant Mag-Stop Art’s owner is F, the Defendant Company promised to pay the price of the goods immediately upon the settlement of the price of the goods from the Korea Water Resources Corporation following the completion of inspection and examination by the management body D, even if the goods supplied by the Plaintiff were not F.

(A) The fact that the examination of the Korea Water Resources Corporation was completed and the price of the goods was settled is recognized by the Defendant Company. At least, the Defendant Company is obliged to pay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff in accordance with the above agreement.

B. The defendant company asserts to the effect that some of the parts among the parts supplied by the plaintiff were different from the specifications of the order or omitted delivery from the specifications of the order.

However, the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 alone is insufficient to admit the argument of the defendant company.

The Korea Water Resources Corporation did not examine and raise any problem with the luminous microscope supplied by the Plaintiff, and it also acknowledges the Defendant Company that the Defendant Company received the payment from the Korea Water Resources Corporation in relation to the luminous microscope supply.

arrow