(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.22 2016나75548

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) 수원지방법원 2017.06.22 2016나75548

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional description under the fourth seven parallels of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Applicant, the Defendant requested on November 6, 2016 that the Plaintiff shall return to the Plaintiff the total supply value of KRW 15,585,000,000, and that the Defendant shall offset or deduct the amount of KRW 15,585,00 from the unpaid price of the goods that the Plaintiff should pay to the Plaintiff without justifiable grounds.

Therefore, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is found to have been able to return only to the Plaintiff only when the manufacturing defect is discovered, the manufacturing defect is destroyed, or the order is mistakenly delivered, among the goods supplied by the Plaintiff, or the goods different from the order are delivered. In the first instance trial, there was a defect in the manufacturing in the goods for which the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to return to the Plaintiff on November 6, 2016, while the lawsuit of this case was pending.

or during transport; or

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that there was a reason for return, such as the delivery of goods different from the order, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(v) The Defendant asserts to the effect that even though the Plaintiff recovered 1,161 goods equivalent to the total value of KRW 39,671,500 from the Defendant around July 2015, the Defendant made a false offer as if only 918 goods were recovered, the difference between the supply value of goods actually recovered from the unpaid amount of goods and the supply value of goods recognized as recovered by the Plaintiff shall be offset or deducted.

Therefore, the purpose of the whole of the statements and arguments in No. 3-1 to No. 3.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.06.08 2017가단529300

-수원지방법원 2018.06.08 2017가단531075

-서울북부지방법원 2017.05.18 2015가합3543

-수원지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나50010

-부산지방법원 2014.06.12 2013가합5711