(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.10.14 2016나3000 | 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) 부산지방법원 2016.10.14 2016나3000

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. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 as to the cause of the claim and the entire arguments, the plaintiff, who runs wholesale and retail business, such as building materials, with the trade name of "C," may recognize the fact that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, who runs a business with the trade name of "D, supplied materials equivalent to KRW 10,253,00 in total at the construction site of three sites, such as "Ga, H, and I, from September 15, 2014 to October 9, 2014; and the fact that the plaintiff received payment of KRW 100,000 from the defendant on October 7, 2014 is the plaintiff as the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 9,253,00 (=10,253,000 - one million) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 8, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the instant complaint.

2. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion that since the plaintiff has been issued a tax invoice in the course of the past transaction with the plaintiff, it is argued that the fact of supplying the same goods as the claim of this case for which no tax invoice has been issued cannot be acknowledged. However, as seen earlier, the fact of supplying the goods is recognized. The defendant's repayment of KRW 1,00,000 to the plaintiff on October 7, 2014 is deemed to have been partially repaid to the plaintiff as a result of the supply of the goods of this case. The defendant did not specify the defendant's specific explanation. The defendant does not clearly specify the relation between E and the defendant who requested the plaintiff to supply the goods. According to the evidence No. 8, E is a field complaint with three goods at the above construction site of the defendant, and according to the fact that the price of the goods supplied is confirmed to coincide with the plaintiff's assertion, the above argument of the defendant cannot be refused to pay the goods of this case.

3. Conclusion.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.05.17 2015나8629

-부산지방법원 2019.01.31 2018나45664

-대구지방법원 2015.03.25 2014가단127643

-서울남부지방법원 2020.10.16 2019나56324

-대구지방법원 2016.06.21 2015가단45878