(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.25 2014나69312

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.25 2014나69312

물품대금

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 16, 2012, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to place an order on behalf of the guidance maintenance system in order to export the prosecution and the double-specing. On October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff ordered a guidance maintenance system in an amount equivalent to KRW 4,158,000 to the net frame of a company that distributes the guidance maintenance system (hereinafter referred to as “specing”).

B. On October 22, 2012, the tower presses issued electronic tax invoices stating that: (a) the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s recipient, and the following supply value of 3,780,000 won; (b) the total amount of 378,000 won; and (c) the Plaintiff’s claim for KRW 4,158,000.

C. Around 4,158,000 won, a leading maintenance system was supplied, and the above leading maintenance system was received by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff the price for the proper guidance maintenance system, instead of the proper guidance maintenance system, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the price for the proper guidance maintenance system.

B. The Defendant received the leading maintenance scheme from the train frame upon the Plaintiff’s order, but thereafter, did not require a proper guidance maintenance scheme, and the Defendant issued a marina tax invoice to the effect that he returned the leading maintenance scheme to the platform and did not claim the price from the platform. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the price to the Plaintiff.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings on the evidence Nos. 2, 15, and 16 of the judgment, the Defendant may recognize the fact that: (a) the Defendant returned the leading maintenance system equivalent to KRW 4,158,00,00 that was supplied from the platform; (b) the supplier of the platform on August 13, 2015; (c) the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff as the recipient; and (d) issued a marina tax invoice on KRW 4,158,000 for the above leading maintenance scheme.

According to the above facts of recognition.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.09.19 2019가단504299

-광주지방법원 2016.05.18 2015나54635

-서울고등법원 2014.02.07 2013노2608

-대구고등법원 2014.03.20 2013노410

-대구지방법원 2014.04.18 2014노88