logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.09.19 2018나65710
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. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 12, 2017, the Defendant: (a) requested manufacturing of the clothing brand “C” (hereinafter “C”); and (b) on March 13, 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to the 2,390 c,90 c, in order to manufacture the kacker.

The plaintiff and the defendant did not prepare the contract.

On August 16, 2018, the defendant explains the ordinary transaction practices of clothing exporters and original exporters in the preparatory documents as follows.

"If a contract is replaced by the original order without preparing a separate contract for the large part, it is most cases where a clothing exporter makes a prior payment to the original export company before the original order is delivered to the original export company at the level of securing mutual trust in the first transaction."

On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant on April 22, 2017, “As it is best to send a so-called “stening sampling” to buyers, considering the schedule of the original unit production, the Plaintiff entered into a contract between the original and the Defendant for the supply of the original unit with the content of delivery of the sampling on April 22, 2017 to release the original unit on April 26 through 27, 2017.”

C. On March 29, 2017, the Defendant issued an additional order to the Plaintiff to the 1,660 king, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “The additional order should be completed on May 10, 2017, even as soon as possible.”

As a result, a supply contract for USD 16,807.5 of the United States dollars was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on two occasions (hereinafter “instant supply contract”). The details of the contract are as indicated in the “instant contract”.

On April 20, 2017, the Plaintiff sent samples to the Defendant.

The defendant, with its sample, does not have the quality of the original unit C on April 21, 2017.

arrow