logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.14 2014가단63687
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant from November 2, 2010 to April 11, 2012; and (b) was not paid KRW 39,710,500 for goods; (c) from February 12, 201 to June 16, 201, the Plaintiff supplied goods to a business entity designated by the Defendant and incurred total amount of KRW 42,975,500 for goods due to the supply of goods to the business entity designated by the Defendant from February 12, 2011 to June 16, 2012; and (d) the Defendant paid KRW 13,768,500 for only KRW 13,768,50 for the goods and did not pay the remainder of KRW 29,207,00 for the goods unpaid.

2. In light of the above, it is insufficient to find out that the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 42,975,500 only to the Plaintiff’s evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim based on such premise.

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to the above money to the Defendant and provided the goods payment claim, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to completely pay the balance by October 2014, 2014, by considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued to engage in the transaction from November 201, when the payment of the price for the goods was interrupted; and (b) the Plaintiff delegated the collection of the goods payment claim against the Defendant to Solomon Credit Information Company in order to recover the unpaid goods payment arising from the transaction relationship with the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant determined the balance as KRW 13,768,500 on September 29, 2014 through employees in charge of Solomon Credit Information Company, and (d) the Defendant agreed to pay the unpaid balance by October 10, 2014; and (d) the Defendant agreed to pay the remaining amount by the settlement to the Plaintiff and the Defendant around 294.

arrow