(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.02.08 2019나112760

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) 대전지방법원 2021.02.08 2019나112760

대여금

Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff as a party is a person engaged in grain processing business under the trade name of “C” and “D,” and the Defendant Company (former company E) is a corporation established for the purpose of importing and selling grain.

B. On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff was supplied with the rise from the Defendant Company. On March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred 22.7 million won to the Defendant Company in advance.

(c)

roasting transaction 1) The Defendant Company supplied Mago and issued tax invoices at the Plaintiff’s order (hereinafter “the instant roasting transaction” and “individual transaction”). The Defendant Company supplied 13,450,800 tons of the unit price per ton on April 13, 2015 (the unit price per ton on the date of supply) and 13,450,800 tons on August 20, 2015; 18,532,800 32,8032,803, 2003, 200 on September 24, 2015; 1,029,600; 36,50 tons of the first 1,50,50 tons of the unit price for 10,50,50 tons of the unit price for 10,50,50 tons of the unit price for 130,50,500 tons of the unit price for 14,5050.

The defendant company was aware of, and the above defendant company supplied bean for almost import costs.

In addition, at the request of the plaintiff, the unit price per ton of the transaction was reduced.

3) The Plaintiff paid the price for the goods immediately after being supplied with the bean. From the third transaction, the payment was somewhat delayed.

In other words, the transaction Nos. 1 and 2 remitted the price of the goods on the following day after the supply, but in the case of the transaction once, the remittance of the amount of KRW 13,450,80 on April 14, 2015, which is the next day after the supply date, was different from the amount of KRW 13,450,80 on the tax invoice issued by the Defendant Company, but the reason is unclear. In the case of the transaction once 3, the payment was made only KRW 36,036,00 on September 25, 2015, KRW 36,000 on the aggregate of KRW 16,036,00 on September 30, 2015, and KRW 4,000 on November 30, 2015.

4) The Plaintiff and the Defendant Company dissented from the end of November 2015.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원논산지원 2019.04.25 2018가단438

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.27 2017가단5000325

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.17 2017고단1298

-울산지방법원 2016.08.26 2016가단50855

-제주지방법원 2017.10.20 2017고단1414