(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.12.22 2015가단3787

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.12.22 2015가단3787

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the processing of telecommunications parts, etc., and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic parts under the trade name “B.”

B. The Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant from July 2008 to July 8, 201, and the balance of the price of goods that the Plaintiff was not paid by the Defendant as of July 8, 201 is KRW 39,069,506.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there exists no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 2-1 through 7, and Gap’s evidence 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the goods price of KRW 39,069,506 and damages for delay to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the Defendant’s defense 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay 10% of the sales amount to the Defendant on the condition that they introduce and transfer both their existing customers C, D, E, and F to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the payment of 10% of the sales amount was set off with the amount equivalent to the above contract amount as the automatic claim. 2) The period of extinctive prescription defense against the Plaintiff was expired after the lapse of three years.

B. We examine the determination of the offset defense, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff agreed to pay 10% of the sales amount to the defendant if the plaintiff and the defendant transfer their existing customer companies to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's defense of offset is not acceptable without further need for determination.

C. 1 The fact that the plaintiff is a corporation which is a stock company under the Commercial Act and the defendant is an individual business operator engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic parts as seen above. The plaintiff's claim on the price of the goods in this case against the defendant constitutes the price for the goods sold by the merchant and the extinctive prescription is set forth in Article 163 subparagraph 6 of

참조조문

-민법 제163조 제6호

-상법

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.06.26 2014나8481

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.02.07 2017가단58376

-부산지방법원 2021.03.31 2020나41733

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2017.02.16 2016가단2106

-인천지방법원 2019.11.29 2019가단243634