logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.06.15 2016가단150210
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Plaintiff on 14,712.

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff ordered the original part necessary for Article 1 of the “B” which was a personal company A operated by Samsung T&T (hereinafter “B”) to “B,” and the Defendant imported the said original part at A’s request and supplied it to the clothing manufacturing company designated by the Plaintiff.

B. On February 11, 2015, the Defendant sent an electronic tax invoice, which is KRW 74,802,075 (including value-added tax, value-added tax, value-added tax 68,001,886) to the Plaintiff, who is supplied with the Plaintiff on February 11, 2015 through the electronic tax invoice issuance agency service, by e-mail, and the Plaintiff

C. Meanwhile, on May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff received an order from the Defendant to supply the original group (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s original group”) and supplied the Defendant with KRW 25,089,350 (including value-added tax, value-added tax, value-added tax 22,808,50), around August 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 4, and 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts, the Plaintiff’s (i) decision on the obligation to pay a part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the Plaintiff and the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the Plaintiff. In light of the premise facts, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the part of the part of the part of the part of

㈎ A은 빈폴 원단을 중국에서 수입하기로 하고 원고로부터 선급금으로 35,000,000원을 수령하였다.

㈏ A이 수입을 진행하던 중 원단을 국내로 들여오려면 전체 원단 대금이 필요하였는데 원고는 원단 수령 후 대금정산을 주장하였고, 이에 자금여유가 없던 A은 피고에게 수입을 부탁하였으며, 피고는 이를 수락하였다.

㈐ 이후 A과...

arrow