(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.05.26 2015나4436 | 리걸엔진

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) 울산지방법원 2016.05.26 2015나4436

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, from December 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011. The Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 1,985,843 won and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day before December 31, 2011.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that, by coercion of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the amount of supplied goods not paid until December 28, 201 is KRW 1,985,843 (Evidence A 4; hereinafter “instant confirmation”) and that the amount of supplied goods not paid until December 28, 2011 is KRW 1,985,843.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant signed and sealed the instant confirmation document by the Plaintiff’s coercion alone with the descriptions of Nos. 3 and 4, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim in excess of the aforementioned amount, as the Plaintiff settled the accounts for the amount of supplied goods unpaid as of April 1, 2013 as KRW 238,232, and settled the accounts for the amount of supplied goods unpaid as of January 12, 2014 as of January 12, 2014.

However, the statement No. 6 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant reached an agreement on the settlement of accounts as alleged in the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is also the defendant.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.01.24 2017가단15675

-광주지방법원순천지원 2016.12.15 2016가단4444

-의정부지방법원 2018.10.25 2018가단5805

-광주지방법원순천지원 2016.06.09 2016가단3892

-청주지방법원충주지원 2016.12.01 2016가합3133