logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.17 2014가합576267
매매대금
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 that the Plaintiff had a claim for the purchase of goods amounting to KRW 104,497,553 against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff acquired the said claim from the Chinese company around August 30, 2013.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 104,497,553 won and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the assignment, etc. of a claim is primarily carried out for the purpose of taking procedural acts, Article 6 of the Trust Act shall apply mutatis mutandis even if the assignment of claim does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, and thus, is null and void. Whether it is the primary purpose of making procedural acts shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the process and method of concluding the assignment of claim contract, interval between the transfer contract and the filing of a lawsuit

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da463 Decided June 27, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8371 Decided June 25, 2004, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the witness Eul's testimony and the whole purport of pleading are acknowledged: (a) Eul supplied the clothing manufactured by the Chinese company to the defendant; (b) Eul transferred the goods payment claim to the plaintiff to the plaintiff in order to have the plaintiff file a lawsuit because the number of stay in Korea and the period of stay are limited due to the lack of knowledge in the Korean language as a shipbuilding yard; and (c) the plaintiff filed a lawsuit accordingly; (c) the plaintiff did not separately set the price for the assignment of claims; and (d) the representative director of the plaintiff stated that "if he collects the price by winning a favorable judgment against the defendant, he returned it to the Chinese company via B" on the fifth date for pleading.

According to the above facts, there are claims for the purchase price of goods against the defendant of the Chinese company, and B are China.

arrow