logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.12.03 2020가단2310
물품대금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 48,350,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from March 31, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

From November 14, 2018, the Plaintiff sold the original tin extracted in the course of the development of D forest land in Seocho-si from November 14, 2018 to the Defendant.

C even after the end of May, 2019, the request for sale of flaps was made by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not sell the flaps by the number of vehicles, unlike before that time, sold the flaps from the construction process to the 100 million won (excluding value added tax).

(2) The Defendant rejected the receipt of the remaining tin, which was only a part of the Defendant.

The total sales proceeds from November 14, 2018 to September 11, 2019 are KRW 255,750,000, and the defendant's repayment amount is KRW 205,112,00.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 48,350,000 won.

It is recognized that the unpaid balance is three million won in the transaction prior to the Defendant’s assertion in the instant case.

However, the instant transaction does not have been purchased in the following ways: (a) the transaction was made in the manner of paying the price for each vehicle by the number of vehicles, such as the transfer.

The Plaintiff alleged that the 300 or more Won was the 300 or more quantities, and concluded a sales contract with 100 million won, which was believed to supplement the shortage, and supplied only 195 minutes, and paid 65 million won per 3333 won.

Therefore, the unpaid purchase price is not only three million won.

Judgment

The key issue is whether the instant transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the selling price according to the volume of the original seat or whether the sales price was determined at KRW 100 million.

In this case, the Plaintiff did not directly confirm the Defendant’s primary seat boarding process at the shipment site (no dispute exists), the Plaintiff’s details and work log (No evidence No. 23) did not confirm the Plaintiff’s signature. Before the instant transaction, the Plaintiff sold 50,000 won per unit to the Defendant and issued a value-added tax invoice corresponding thereto (excluding value-added tax).

arrow