logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.05.30 2017가단117826
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 120,806,979 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from October 14, 2017 to March 28, 2018.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in the evidence No. 2-1 through No. 5 of the supply of goods, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with steel products worth KRW 134,379,377 from March 31, 2017 to October 13, 2017.

2. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the goods under the Suwon District Court 2018Gahap11674, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit. As such, in full view of the entire purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Sung Steel Co., Ltd. filed an application against the Defendant for a payment order against the Defendant for the payment of the goods under the Suwon District Court 2017Da14096, Nov. 13, 2017. The Plaintiff withdrawn the said application and the payment order procedure for the Sung Steel was implemented with the Suwon District Court 2018Gahap16744 upon filing the application for the payment order for the Sung Steel. Accordingly, according to the above recognized facts, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant does not constitute double lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

3. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 120,806,979 won as the remainder of the limitation, and the damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from October 14, 2017 to March 28, 2018, which is obvious that it is the delivery date of a copy of the application for purport and cause modification of the claim of this case from October 14, 2017, which is the day following the date of final supply to the plaintiff.

The defendant's defense to the effect that he additionally repaid the goods, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, so the defendant's defense is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and ordered to accept it.

arrow