(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.04.13 2016가단239806

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.04.13 2016가단239806

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 15,542,00 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from January 6, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant entered into a contract with a non-party company, Inc. (hereinafter “non-party company”) for the sales of products A/S, and for the sales of products with the above company, as the Seoul and Ulsan District General Sales Agency for the products of the above company, as well as the company with the non-party company (hereinafter “non-party company”). On April 22, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract for the sales of products A/S, and the sales of products with the above company.

B. The Plaintiff issued orders to the Defendant for KRW 50 of the balonylpropy 50, KRW 15, KRW 10, KRW 10, KRW 5, KRW 5, KRW 5, KRW 2, KRW 3, KRW 179, KRW 3, and KRW 179. Of them, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the remainder of the goods excluding KRW 38.

C. Since then, the Defendant did not supply the goods to the Plaintiff, and returned KRW 15,726,00 (the value of the goods corresponding to KRW 818,00 per unit 1,00,000,000 on May 30, 2016, and KRW 1,636,00 on June 7, 2016, and KRW 15,726,00 on June 20, 2016 (the value of goods calculated as KRW 818,00 per unit, which is the value of goods supplied by the Defendant).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the goods supply contract on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance by serving the duplicate of the instant complaint.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 3, 6 through 8, 11-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant failed to perform its duty to supply the 19th Patonane (19th portion returned in advance). The Plaintiff notified the cancellation of the goods supply contract through the delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case. Since the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served on the Defendant on October 5, 2016, the instant goods supply contract was lawfully rescinded.

Therefore, the defendant should return to the plaintiff the 15,542,00 won (19th price x 818,000 won) for the 19th price for the robot program.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.06.30 2015가단94548

-서울서부지방법원 2019.06.27 2018가단236060

-수원지방법원 2017.09.27 2017나52610

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.30 2018가단14964

-서울남부지방법원 2018.09.21 2018가단6444