(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.06.22 2015가단5552

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.06.22 2015가단5552

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,434,290 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from March 13, 2015 to June 22, 2016.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. As stated in the attached specification of the Plaintiff’s specification of transactions in [Attachment], the Plaintiff supplied Lenet and Bash to the Defendant as indicated in the “Plaintiff’s Claim” column, and the Defendant written the Defendant’s cost of value-added tax on the goods returned. Therefore, the Defendant appears to have erred in calculating the “38,103,000 won” of the briefs as of August 15, 2015, supra.

shall be granted.

However, since the Defendant only ordered 19,305,000 won to the Plaintiff, it is necessary to pay 17,798,550 won for the remainder of the goods and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant supplied goods from the Plaintiff, such as the part regarding the “recognition” in the attached specification of transactions [Attachment] to the Defendant’s assertion, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay KRW 19,305,000 for the goods on March 5, 2015.

Since the remainder of the attached specification [Attachment] does not have to be supplied with the “unlawful” portion, the Defendant does not have any price for goods to be reduced to the Plaintiff.

2. The amount of goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 20,739,290, as shown in the [Attachment List] and the “determined Amount” column for the judgment.

Other costs asserted by the plaintiff are not acceptable.

Therefore, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 1,434,290 (20,739,290 - 19,305,000) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from March 13, 2015, following the delivery date of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, until June 22, 2016, which is the date of the decision of this case, where the Defendant is deemed to have legitimate dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to perform as a result of the delivery date of the complaint of this case.

3. The plaintiff's claim within the above recognition scope is accepted, and the remainder is dismissed.

참조조문

-상법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.06.08 2016나12677

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.01 2014나39212

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2016가합562255

-광주지방법원 2014.11.14 2013가합8177

-대전지방법원 2017.03.09 2016가단214701