(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.11.16 2017가단3583

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.11.16 2017가단3583

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that around May 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a supply contract with Aluminium with the Defendant and supplied Aluminium processed and supplied Aluminium. Since the Defendant did not receive the processing cost of KRW 41,826,450 (hereinafter “instant processing cost”), the Defendant is liable to pay the instant processing cost to the Plaintiff.

(A) The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff did not receive KRW 72,136,065 in total transactions with the defendant, including the above transactions, but the plaintiff's claim is limited to the above field contract case in light of the purport of the whole arguments.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff issued a tax invoice under the name of processing cost and claimed the amount of money. However, in the course of settlement agreement with the plaintiff, the plaintiff issued a marina tax invoice under the agreement to waive the processing cost of this case, and 33,985,423 won, which is the remainder of the goods price, was all paid.

2. On the basis of the judgment, since there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff issued a marina tax invoice of KRW 45,328,676, including surtax after the settlement agreement with the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have agreed to waive the processing costs of this case in the course of the settlement agreement with the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense is with merit.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff’s issuance of a marina tax invoice as above was made by the Defendant’s coercion that the payment would not be made unless the amount is reduced according to the content of the current status of storage (Evidence A3) around December 2016. Thus, it is re-appealed to the purport that there is no validity. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff agreed to waive the claim for the instant processing costs by the Defendant’s coercion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.10.05 2015가단44969

-인천지방법원 2016.12.16 2016가합54359

-부산지방법원 2020.07.08 2019나51796

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.15 2019가단85641

-대법원 2022. 5. 26. 선고 2021다271732 판결