logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.09.01 2017나2234
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. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the Plaintiff’s cause of the claim and the purport of the entire film and pleading, it can be acknowledged that, around June 2014, the Plaintiff, who operates the manufacturing and selling business, supplied 18,00,000 won to the Defendant who was awarded a subcontract for interior work from Cheongma Industry Co., Ltd., and that the Plaintiff was paid the price by the end of June 2014.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 18,00,000 won for the above singcing and 5% interest per annum for the plaintiff from July 1, 2014 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from the date following the above payment date to the date of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion that the horse industry corporation is the other party to whom the Plaintiff was supplied with the Rausing. The Defendant asserted the above fact of recognition, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed as the horse industry corporation as the other party to whom the said recognition was followed.

In addition, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff should pay the price for the bid after receiving the price for the bid from the Cheongma Industry Co., Ltd., but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff and the defendant determined the above time and conditions in paying the price.

The defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow