logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.01.19 2016가단11266
물품잔대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,423,80 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 30, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates the manufacturing business of filtering machinery with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who operates the manufacturing business of food machinery with the trade name of “D.”

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for supply and repair of goods, etc. with the Defendant, and accordingly, supplied a total of KRW 51,323,800 from August 2015 to October 2015 (including repair; hereinafter the same shall apply). The Defendant paid KRW 29,90,000 out of the price of the said goods and did not pay the remainder of KRW 21,423,80.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 21,423,800 for the goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from June 30, 2016 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the delivery date of the goods.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the price of goods was paid KRW 17,756,00 in addition to KRW 29,90,000, which the plaintiff recognized as the price of goods.

According to the statement Nos. 1-1 and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, the defendant is recognized as having deposited KRW 17,756,00 in total from June 4, 2015 to July 23, 2015, with the account under the name of Non-Party E, the plaintiff's employee, but there is no evidence to prove that the above KRW 17,756,00 was paid in the name of repayment for the goods supplied by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is reasonable.

arrow