logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2016.04.20 2015가단5050
선급금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 150,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 1, 2014 to October 16, 2015.

Reasons

1. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A through 7, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the purchase of plastic raw materials, and the Defendant paid KRW 150,000,000,000,000 for advance payment, as well as KRW 50,000,000 on March 2, 2012. The Defendant, on November 9, 2012, paid KRW 150,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant under the pretext of advance payment. The Defendant, on December 9, 2012, provided that “the cash custody certificate shall be delivered or paid in cash unless it is delivered or paid in cash” to the Plaintiff for the purpose of “the cash custody certificate” (hereinafter referred to as “the cash custody certificate”).

(1) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 150,000,000 per annum from January 1, 2014 to October 16, 2015, which is the day following the due date for payment of 150,000,000 won based on the cash custody certificate of this case. However, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 1, 2014 to October 16, 2015, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff is entitled to 150,00,000 won as above from November 10, 2012, which is the day following the date on which the cash custody certificate of this case was prepared. However, in light of the contents of the above cash custody certificate, the Defendant does not accept the aforementioned damages for delay until December 315, etc.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that he supplied the Plaintiff with raw materials equivalent to KRW 500,000,000 on more than once from March 2012 to July 2013, 2013, but the Defendant’s assertion is rejected insofar as any materials proving this are not submitted.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is above.

arrow