(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2017.08.10 2016가단13623

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) 수원지방법원평택지원 2017.08.10 2016가단13623

운송료

Text

1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit;

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. There is no dispute between the parties concerned as to the fact that the Plaintiff engaged in a cargo transport business based on the fact that he/she received a request for transportation from the Defendant who runs a temporary re-lease business from June 2010.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the transportation fee for the direct carriage by the plaintiff upon the defendant's request is KRW 23,930,000, and the transportation fee paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant is KRW 44,910,000, in total, KRW 20,980,000. Since the plaintiff paid KRW 16,440,000 out of the above amount, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 28,470,00 in balance.

B. Determination 1) As to the portion of the transport fee that the Plaintiff transported upon the Defendant’s direct request, first of all, the Defendant recognized that the total amount of the transport fee to the Plaintiff was KRW 23,030,00,00. Thus, it is difficult to recognize the existence of the transport fee exceeding the scope recognized by the Defendant solely based on the above evidence, in light of the following: (a) although the Plaintiff submitted evidence to support the above amount of the transport fee; (b) the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 of the above evidence was merely a statement of accounts arranged by the Plaintiff himself; (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transport fee should be unilaterally calculated after the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit; and (d) the evidence Nos. 4 was merely a unit price table claiming that the Plaintiff should be applied to the transport fee in the case of subparagraph 4; and (e) the Defendant’s unit price table (the evidence No. 1) claimed by the Defendant (the evidence No. 1).

Next, the part of the transportation fee that the Plaintiff paid by the Defendant is merely a tax invoice with no indication of the Defendant, in which case it is impossible to confirm whether or not the documents prepared by the Plaintiff itself or for any reasons.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.03.31 2016나9148

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.17 2018가단63021

-수원지방법원 2017.03.09 2016나63651

-서울남부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016가단244921

-광주지방법원 2019.08.21 2018나5436