(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.09.07 2017가단122992

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 안양지원 2018.09.07 2017가단122992

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 69,300,000 as well as 6% per annum from September 24, 2017 to November 10, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2017, the Plaintiff, a software development and supplier, entered into a commodity supply contract (hereinafter “instant commodity contract”) with the Defendant on the exclusive server, etc. for the establishment of mGard, a mobile device management system, to prevent leakage of inside information caused by mobile devices (hereinafter “instant product”).

B. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the instant product under the instant goods contract and completed the installation thereof.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the price of 69,300,000 won for the goods (63,000,000 won for the value of the goods supplied) and damages for delay.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion and determination 1) concluded the instant goods contract with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant decided to purchase the instant goods after going through the testing process for a certain period after the completion of the supply and installation of the instant goods. The instant goods contract, which is the establishment of the mobile device management system, was generated to the extent that the purpose of the instant goods contract could not be achieved. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on September 18, 2017 and October 12, 2017, as the Defendant expressed his intent to cancel the instant goods contract. (2) The Defendant’s submission evidence alone, after going through the testing process for a certain period after the completion of the construction of the instant goods, decided to determine the purchase.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant caused an error in the instant product to the extent that the existence of the instant product contract is no longer expected, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to KRW 69.3 million for the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2014.12.03 2014고단8743

-대구지방법원 2019.01.24 2017고단3593 (1)

-전주지방법원 2021.03.10 2020고단1456

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.16 2019가단5153124

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2021.01.08 2020가단61599