logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.06.18 2014가단224643
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 28,480,184 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 20, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

From December 3, 2013 to December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the amount equivalent to KRW 85,14,298 won in the market glass 85,64,114 on seven occasions, and received KRW 56,64,114 in the price may be recognized either by dispute between the parties or by the statement in evidence A Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 28,480,184 won for the unpaid goods and 20% interest per annum from September 20, 2014 to the day of full payment as requested by the plaintiff, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the payment of the price (18 million won) cannot be made due to the defect in the market glass supplied by the plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to prove that there is a defect in the glass supplied by the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that it is not possible for the plaintiff to refuse payment because he did not notify the plaintiff of the defect in the supply of the glass without delay. In the sale between merchants, when the purchaser received the object, it shall be inspected without delay, and in the case of discovery of the defect, it may not be claimed for the reduction of the price or damages. According to the above evidence, even if the defendant received the glass from the plaintiff without delay, it is recognized that the defendant received it, even if he received it from the plaintiff, it is not proven that the defendant inspected the glass supplied by the plaintiff without delay and notified the plaintiff that it had the defect. Thus, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff's warranty against the plaintiff has no reason to further examine it.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

arrow