logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.09.14 2016가단262486
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s currency 27,814.80 U.S. dollars and the said money, 4,439.75 U.S. dollars.

Reasons

1. The facts stated in the separate sheet concerning the cause of the claim do not have any particular dispute between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply). As to the plaintiff 27,814.80 percentage of the purchase price of goods and the currency 4,439.75 percentage of the purchase price of goods in the European Union, the due date for payment of which is April 14, 2016, from April 15, 2016 to April 18, 250,250.40 percentage from the day following the due date of the above payment to April 19, 2016 to the day following the due date of the payment, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 20% of the annual damages for delay calculated from April 20, 2016 to May 16, 2016 to the day following the due date of payment, to 20% of the record No. 216.20% of the following date of the lawsuit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant sold the instant products in Korea under the exclusive sales contract in Korea. The Plaintiff unilaterally reversed the exclusive sales contract, and rather interferes with the Defendant’s business by reducing the Defendant’s employees and selling goods at lower prices than the Defendant’s customers.

Therefore, the defendant revoked the sales contract of the goods of this case due to fraud or mistake, or offset the defendant's damage claim against the plaintiff within the extent of the same amount as the plaintiff's damage claim for the goods of this case.

In addition, the Plaintiff is obliged to return the instant goods from the Defendant according to the good faith principle.

B. However, each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 6 through 9, and No. 1, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the whole purport of the pleadings, are as follows.

arrow