logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2015.03.25 2014가단23537
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,272,50 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from October 19, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff entered into a continuous supply contract with the defendant and supplied meat, etc. to the defendant until June 21, 2014, but did not receive KRW 33,272,50 out of the price of the goods. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of unpaid goods 3,272,50 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 19, 2014 to the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

2. On July 10, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Suwon District Court on July 14, 2014, and received an order of prohibition (2014 installments947) from the above court on July 14, 2014, and the above order of prohibition was served on the Plaintiff on July 29, 2014, and thus, the Defendant’s claim cannot be complied with.

On the other hand, an order of prohibition taken under an individual rehabilitation procedure is only the prohibition of compulsory execution, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, auction procedure and repayment of rehabilitation claims based on rehabilitation claims, not the prohibition of procedural acts based on rehabilitation claims (see Article 593(1)4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Thus, an application for individual rehabilitation was filed insofar as the decision of approval of repayment plan or decision of immunity is not made in the individual rehabilitation procedure.

The Plaintiff’s claim of this case cannot be restricted solely on the ground that there was an order of prohibition or prohibition.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow