(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.05.13 2019가단15440

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) 인천지방법원 2020.05.13 2019가단15440

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,05,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 9, 2019 to June 13, 2019, and the following.

Reasons

1. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 8 as a whole, the plaintiff is recognized to have supplied the defendant with gold punishment, etc. equivalent to 56,15,000 won in total from October 31, 2017 to November 20, 2018. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at a rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings for the plaintiff, excluding 20,100,000 won in the price of the above goods, for which the plaintiff was paid by the defendant, and the remaining 36,05,000 won in total from February 9, 2019 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from February 9, 2019 to June 13, 2019, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and from the following day to November 20.

2. As to the determination of the defense, etc., the defendant shall repair or refund the gold paper that can not be used as the amount of pipelines supplied by the plaintiff while the gold paper supplied by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request due to the plaintiff's failure to return the CAD file and CAD file to be returned to the defendant despite the fact that the CAD file and sprinking business

However, there is no evidence to prove that there is a defect in the gold form supplied by the plaintiff, and even if the plaintiff must return the CAD file or wood business to the defendant, the duty to return is concurrently performing the duty of the defendant to pay the price for the goods.

Since there is no evidence to deem that the defendant's obligation to pay the goods is more advanced than the defendant's obligation to pay the goods, the defendant's above defense is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.11.20 2019가단529465

-서울남부지방법원 2018.12.13 2018가단230568

-서울남부지방법원 2019.06.05 2018가단211314

-수원지방법원안양지원 2020.01.30 2019가단112753