(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.01.26 2016가단4568

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) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.01.26 2016가단4568

물품대금반환 청구

Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 21,965,320 and Defendant B from November 13, 2015 to May 10, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. According to the order sheet prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendants engaged in the manufacture and sales of ready-mixed (hereinafter “instant order sheet”), Defendant B was written in the order form, and Defendant C was written in the joint and several sureties, respectively, and the Defendants signed at the bottom of the instant order form as the order form or the joint and several sureties.

B. According to the above order, the amount of value-added tax shall be supplied at 62,400 won per unit price of ready-mixed 25-21-12, but value-added tax shall be separate, the size and quantity may vary, and the settlement shall be made in cash on the 10th of the following month after the closing of the settlement.

C. Since September 8, 2015 to October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixeds equivalent to KRW 27,765,320 in total to Pyeongtaek-si E in accordance with the above order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Regarding the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods under the order of this case by the parties, since the defendant Eul prepared the order of this case as the head of F architect's office, which is the contractor of the Commercial Building Construction Corporation located in Pyeongtaek-si E-si, in order to facilitate the order, the F architect's payment of the above goods should be made, and even if not, since the defendant Eul retired from the F architect's office, and the plaintiff was paid to the representative G of F architect's office, it is unreasonable to claim for the payment of the goods to the defendant Eul. The defendant Eul brought the order of this case stating the defendant's personal information and signature from the defendant Eul's assistant, and the defendant C, which is the prop, also a prop, prepared the order of this case in order to cooperate with the field where the defendant Eul can be supplied with the above order of this case, and made a deception during that process, the plaintiff's claim under the above order of this case is unjust.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the cause of the claim.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2015.02.13 2014나964

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.16 2019나15426

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.05.04 2017가단208996

-대전지방법원 2014.11.05 2014가단210057

-대전지방법원 2015.06.19 2014나107220