(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.18 2020나34072

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.18 2020나34072

물품대금

Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is the purport of the claim and the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaging in the import business, etc. of foreign home appliances, and the Defendant is a private entrepreneur engaging in wholesale and retail business of home appliances with the trade name of “C”.

B. On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which the Defendant and the Plaintiff would entrust the sale of the former HUB products (a model D; hereinafter referred to as “instant product”) imported in Spain to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant entrustment contract”) and supplied the Defendant with PCB 50 units, which are the 1,306 units and components of the instant product, by February 2, 2018.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not pay 18,720,000 won for the portion of the 72 unit price of the instant goods supplied by the Plaintiff and 2,000,000 won for the 25 unit price for the PB base price for the instant goods ( = 80,000 x 25 unit price), and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to pay 20,720,000 won for the total amount of the unpaid goods.

2) In the instant consignment contract, the repair was performed by the Defendant, but the parts necessary for the repair were agreed to be supplied free of charge to the Plaintiff. The goods of this case returned due to the Plaintiff’s refusal to exchange the goods of this case returned due to defects and the failure to timely provide parts necessary for the repair.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to receive 72 goods with defective defects from the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the Plaintiff the 72 unit price of the instant goods and the PCB base price subject to free supply.

B. 1) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and the testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 10, and each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 6 to 10, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

A) The plaintiff and the defendant of this case.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.03.09 2015나18893

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.29 2018나53601

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.06.27 2016가합204550

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.22 2018가단5088971

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.21 2015가단5297606