(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.08.27 2015가단7618

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.08.27 2015가단7618

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 2 million won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that at the request of the Defendant, who served as a good-person Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) C, the Plaintiff supplied solar PCs to the Nonparty Company, and the Defendant prepared a cash custody certificate to pay KRW 81 million for the goods, but did not pay only KRW 8 million up to now.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 73 million won to the plaintiff the amount of the goods unpaid.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Defendant, on July 1, 201, prepared a cash custody certificate (Evidence A 2) to the effect that “the Plaintiff keeps custody of KRW 81 million for the settlement of solar PC supplied by the Plaintiff to the non-party company, and promises to return it to the Plaintiff by July 15, 2011.” is recognized.

B. However, the following facts are also acknowledged in full view of each description of evidence Nos. 1 to 13 as follows.

① As an employee of the Plaintiff, D was in charge of the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company, and in fact there was no fact that he supplied Bable PC to the Nonparty Company.

Upon D’s request, the Defendant discussed to the effect that he was supplied with the tables PC to the Plaintiff, and prepared the said cash custody certificate.

② The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order as the Defendant did not pay the money until the date of cash custody certificate, and the original of the payment order (this Court Decision 201j4019) stating that “the Defendant would pay KRW 81 million to the Plaintiff,” was served on August 22, 2011.

③ Since then, on August 30, 201, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D discussed the resolution method and the non-party company did not actually receive the tables PC from D in the process.

If the Plaintiff pays KRW 10 million to the Defendant, it would not impose a civil or criminal liability on the Defendant with respect to the above BablePC transactions or cash custody certificate.

The defendant suggested that "the defendant is obligated to pay", and the defendant is the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.04.07 2014가단26998

-대전지방법원 2017.07.11 2017가단8507

-창원지방법원 2016.05.12 2015가단20301

-울산지방법원 2018.12.13 2018나21920

-제주지방법원 2015.01.08 2013가합5127