(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.29 2015나11110

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 2015.10.29 2015나11110

물품대금

Text

1. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 65,787,538.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the plastic surface processing business, etc., and Defendant B is a person who runs the wholesale and retail business of electrical appliances under the name of Defendant A, who is a wife.

B. Around August 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to continuously supply films for the protection of plastic products made of materials owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “protection films”) according to Defendant B’s order (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

C. Around that time, Defendant B entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to re-supply the protected films supplied under the instant supply contract to the KSA, and the Plaintiff was designated as a factory owned by the KSA’s partner company under the instant supply contract.

According to the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff supplied the protective films equivalent to KRW 464,689,50 in total to the place of delivery designated by Defendant B from August 2012 to May 24, 2013 pursuant to the instant supply contract.

E. However, Defendant B paid only KRW 395,152,600 out of the supply price to the Plaintiff, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 69,536,90 (=464,689,500 – 395,152,600).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A asserts that the Defendant A is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 69,536,90, and delay damages therefrom, according to the instant supply contract.

However, the fact that the supplier of the instant supply contract is not the defendant A but the defendant B is also the owner of the instant contract, and the plaintiff cannot seek payment under the said contract against the defendant A who is not the party to the contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2015.02.16 2013가단13653

-인천지방법원 2015.07.23 2015가합51971

-대전지방법원 2019.01.17 2017나106921

-서울북부지방법원 2019.10.15 2019나263

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.08.26 2019가단95433