(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.05.27 2019나5454 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2020.05.27 2019나5454

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From July 29, 2013 to December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with ready-mixeds equivalent to KRW 579,085,790 (i.e., the supply price of KRW 526,441,626, value-added tax of KRW 52,64,164) at a number of places at construction sites run by the Defendant.

B. From January 29, 2014 to April 29, 2016, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 549,33,680 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the ready-mixed (=579,085,790 won - 549,33,680 won), except in extenuating circumstances, to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The main point of the argument was that the Defendant supplied ready-mixeds from the Plaintiff for each construction site, and the price was also paid to the Plaintiff for each construction site.

The unpaid price claimed by the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s price for ready-mixeds at the construction site of “military office-terminal”, and the final date of supply of ready-mixeds at the construction site is August 28, 2014, and the last date of payment is February 27, 2015.

However, since the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on November 12, 2018 after three years from then on, the statute of limitations has expired.

B. According to the above determination, even though the defendant was found to have received a variety of ready-mixeds from the plaintiff at the construction site, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has paid the ready-mixeds by dividing them into the plaintiff and the plaintiff at the site or settled the prices by site.

Rather, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant did not pay the plaintiff the specific amount for each on-site, but paid the price of the non-permanently fixed amount, and even if the plaintiff deposits the price into the passbook, it is recognized that the construction site is specified and the fact that the plaintiff did not remain in the transaction record, etc. is recognized.

Therefore, it is true.

유사 판례

-대법원 2010. 10. 28. 선고 2010다55187 판결

-대전지방법원 2016.07.12 2015나11685

-광주지방법원 2017.01.18 2015가단41492

-대전지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가단15451

-광주지방법원 2021.01.14 2019나63606