(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.07.22 2014나6879 | 리걸엔진

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) 울산지방법원 2015.07.22 2014나6879

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. The Plaintiff supplied 87,382,00 won in total to the Defendant from January 2, 2012 to June 2013, 2013, such as freezing and freezing, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 24,706,000 out of the price of goods from the Defendant does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of 24,706,000 won for the goods unpaid and delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff, in collusion with D who is an employee of the Defendant, deceives the Defendant by submitting a false statement of transaction or a tax invoice, and thereby deceiving the Defendant by which it was received KRW 19,70,000,00 in total from the Defendant 17 times during the period from March 2, 2011 to December 3, 2012, thereby deceiving the Defendant. As such, the Defendant offsets the Plaintiff’s damage claim against the Defendant by the amount equivalent to KRW 19,70,000, the amount of KRW 19,700 against the Defendant.

(2) The Plaintiff, in collusion with D, obtained a loan from the Defendant under the name of the business partner from March 3, 201 to November 30, 2012 through the receipt of the loan from the Defendant in the name of the business partner and embezzled the Defendant’s money in the name of the business, thereby incurring damage equivalent to KRW 145,101,50 in total to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant set off against the Plaintiff’s claim for damages equivalent to KRW 145,101,50 against the Plaintiff.

(3) Even if the Plaintiff did not act in collusion with D in the above Paragraph (2), the Plaintiff did not notify it to the Defendant in violation of the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle even though he knew of the illegal act, such as D’s above Paragraph (2), thereby resulting in the Defendant’s damage. Thus, the Defendant set off against the Plaintiff’s claim for damages equivalent to KRW 145,101,50 against the Plaintiff.

B. First of all, the defendant's argument.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2014.09.26 2014가단4834

-서울고등법원 2014.05.01 2013나60144

-서울서부지방법원 2020.12.03 2020나41297

-서울남부지방법원 2017.09.14 2016가단262486

-부산지방법원 2018.05.02 2017나58724