logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.03.19 2017가단334250
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, who operates C, under which the Plaintiff would be supplied with KRW 20 million (hereinafter “instant contract”). P.U. NOOFAMING MMAE (hereinafter “instant machinery”) 1 SET, which is a machine (hereinafter “instant contract”), which produces polybane as a raw material, by mixing two raw materials (prepolym (prepolyer, light chemical, chemical agents), and dust (R, synthetic resin) that produces polybane as a raw material) with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

Article 6 (Supply of Machines and Equipment): The completion of delivery means that the approval of the plaintiff is obtained on the basis of the contents of the machinery installed at the designated place of the plaintiff, and the defendant, in manufacturing the machinery, shall conduct a trial for installation and operation of the machinery

Article 7 (Period of Guarantee: (1) The guarantee period from the date of the delivery of machinery shall be 1) years, but the defendant shall promptly take measures when the problem of machinery due to any defect in the guarantee period occurs, and if the problem of attempted operation of the plaintiff is attributable to the plaintiff.

Article 11: The defendant will undertake the contract on the condition that the contract is terminated for the delivery of electric wires, cables, sampling failures, and wellstan machinery to the plaintiff.

C. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) installed the instant machinery at the company site operated by the Plaintiff and delivered it to the Defendant; (b) paid KRW 12 million for the remainder of the machinery and KRW 2 million for value-added tax.

On October 30, 2017, after being supplied with the instant machine by the Defendant, the Plaintiff confirmed that the instant machine was destroyed in accordance with Article 11 of the instant contract, and notified the Defendant to recover and return the instant machine as soon as possible.

arrow