logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.02.15 2016가단27650
물품대금등
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 153,762,00 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from November 4, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff (C operator) supplied the Defendant (D operator) with mechanical equipment (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) equivalent to KRW 244,200,00 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) from April 2014 to February 2015, and supplied 57,645,500 of the price from March 2014 to August 2016.

B. After that, the Defendant paid part of the price of mechanical equipment and expendable goods to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, as of October 12, 2016, KRW 168,762,00 in total, and KRW 14,762,00 in total, and KRW 168,762,00 in total, as of October 12, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 15,000 in total to the Plaintiff around January 201, 2017, and the remainder of the outstanding amount became KRW 153,762,00 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, obvious facts in records, Gap 1-7 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant shall pay 153,762,00 won to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s defense to the effect that the Defendant transferred the equipment owned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on October 12, 2016 through an agreement with the Plaintiff on October 12, 2016 in accord with the payment obligation.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant are aware of the fact that around October 12, 2016, they disposed of equipment owned by the defendant and agreed to pay the price for the goods to the plaintiff.

However, in light of the content of the agreement, the Defendant merely delegated the disposal of the Defendant’s owned equipment to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the obligation, and the agreement alone does not appear to mean that the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiff is extinguished by payment in kind in lieu of payment in lieu of payment in lieu of the obligation

Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 8 and all pleadings, the defendant collected part of the equipment delegated to the plaintiff by December 6, 2016 and made an agreement dated October 12, 2016.

arrow