logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2020.08.13 2019가합6369
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 739,580,118 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from August 1, 2017 to September 18, 2019 and the following.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

(a) Each of the following facts may be admitted either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence 1 to 4 and 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

1) The Plaintiff supplied drugs to a pharmaceutical wholesaler in the name of “D”, which was operated by the Defendant’s father from around July 201 to July 2014, from around 2011, to the Defendant’s father. 2) The Defendant followed the above company and operated the company and the name of the business owner is changed to the Defendant. On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C concluded a contract with the effect that “the Defendant will take over the goods payment obligations of KRW 738,386,61 against the Plaintiff.”

3. After that, the Plaintiff continued to supply the drugs to the Defendant until February 2017. The sum of the amount of the goods that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 739,580,118.

B. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 739,580,118 and delay damages therefor.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the argument 1) Although the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 438,704,708 from June 1, 2014 to March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was omitted and calculated. The above amount should be deducted from the price of the goods. 2) The Defendant transferred the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of the goods to E, a foundation of the Defendant (hereinafter “E”) around July 2015, in lieu of the payment of a part of the above goods. Thus, the above amount should be deducted from the price of the goods.

3) Even if the assignment of claims was made for the purpose of security, the Plaintiff, as the first time, shall claim against the Defendant, after exercising the above assignment claim against E, only such shortage. 4) The Plaintiff shall claim against the Defendant on April 2017.

arrow