logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.06.23 2015가단41978
화물운송료
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. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “C,” engaged in cargo transport business, and engaged in the transaction of transporting construction materials to the Defendant who is engaged in temporary re-lease business from around 2007 to October 31, 2013 and receiving transportation charges therefor.

B. As of October 31, 2013, transport charges that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff are KRW 37,125,000 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 6-1 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 the Plaintiff KRW 31,825,000 (=37,125,000-5,300), except for the remainder of KRW 31,825,000 (2,00,000 as of January 14, 2013), which is the remainder of KRW 37,125,000,000 (=37,125,000-5,30,000) that was paid by the Plaintiff as of October 31, 2013, to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances (i.e., the amount repaid as of November 14, 2013).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant transport charge claim”). B.

The Plaintiff asserts that the transportation charge unpaid from around October 2007 to December 2013 is KRW 33,315,000. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the premise that the Plaintiff still transported additional construction materials to the Defendant even after October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of KRW 1,490,00 (=3,315,000-31,825,00) additional transportation charge incurred therefrom was sought. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff entered into a transportation contract with the Defendant after October 31, 2013. Rather, the Plaintiff concluded a transportation contract with the Defendant on December 31, 2013 and concluded a transportation contract with the Defendant on December 31, 2013 as a whole, and concluded a transportation contract with the Defendant’s father on May 31, 2014.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3...

arrow