(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.03.31 2016나107712

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) 대전지방법원 2017.03.31 2016나107712

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C entered into a contract for purchase and supply of building materials (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with the Defendant, and supplied the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 38,65,370, including remote areas and subsidiary materials, from July 26, 2014 to September 5, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the remaining 3,655,370 won after deducting the deposit amount of president 5,000,000 won paid by the defendant at the time of the above supply contract and the damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the price for the goods that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 33,410,040, including the cost for supplementary materials 443,290.

Since the defendant paid 30,00,000 won to the plaintiff as the president deposit, the plaintiff must return it to the defendant.

The Plaintiff shall issue a tax invoice directly to the Defendant’s customer and shall return it to the Defendant because the Plaintiff obtained unjust enrichment of the value-added tax amounting to KRW 5,075,614.

The Plaintiff, instead of the Defendant, collected KRW 200,00 from E on August 22, 2014, and KRW 232,00 from F, shall be returned to the Defendant.

Ultimately, if all of the money to be returned by the Plaintiff is deducted from the above 33,410,040 won for the above goods, the Defendant would not have any money to be paid to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the price of goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant from July 26, 2014 to September 5, 2014, including the cost of non-materials, is KRW 38,65,370, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

However, in full view of the facts stated in Eul evidence No. 22 and witness G testimony, the amount of goods claimed by the plaintiff is not consistent, and Eul evidence No. 22 is prepared and delivered to the defendant.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.08.25 2015가단10452

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가합517336

-전주지방법원 2017.09.15 2016나9448

-창원지방법원 2018.07.05 2017나29

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.08 2016가합525874