(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.16 2019가합14458

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) 수원지방법원 2019.10.16 2019가합14458

물품대금

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 December 18, 2014 and January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to manufacture the parts of the instant parts, such as machinery in the separate sheet (450 vehicles and LM 900 vehicles; hereinafter “instant parts”) as indicated in the separate sheet, with the Defendant, for the purpose of using them in a specific machine, and a third party cannot use the said parts for any other purpose.

A contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the intent to produce and supply KRW 206,690,000 in total of the price was concluded on January 26, 2015 and March 2, 2015, and the production of the instant parts was commenced from January 6, 2015 to January 6, 2015 after preparing a drawing for the manufacture of the instant parts and obtaining approval from the Defendant.

B. On February 13, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay the price for the goods even though all of the instant parts were completed, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for claiming the price for the goods (this court 2017Gahap11714), and received the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on October 20, 2017.

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed, and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2017Na2066726) revoked the judgment of the first instance court and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, on the ground that the part of the main structure of the instant parts produced by the Plaintiff was manufactured in accordance with the mutual drawing and it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff had completed the agreed work, and that the Plaintiff did not perform the examination procedure that forms part of the obligation to deliver the object, so long as the Plaintiff did not perform the examination procedure that forms part of the obligation to deliver the object, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the purchase price against the Defendant is not established.

Although the plaintiff appealed, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.09.07 2017나2066726

-대법원 2018.01.25 2015다21431

-대구고등법원 2016.05.04 2015나1636

-대구지방법원 2016.07.07 2015나17607

-부산지방법원 2015.01.29 2013가단82797 (1)