logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.10.27 2019가단105482
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply the Plaintiff with the clothes that the Defendant completed the furnal process using materials when the Plaintiff purchased the clothing raw materials and subsidiary materials and put them into the Defendant’s Vietnam plant.

However, inasmuch as the Defendant manufactured defective clothings, such as having a difference in the retail length of both arms supplied by the Plaintiff, having a pollutant, and failing to remove the transfering, etc., and incurred damages equivalent to KRW 61,271,850 ( KRW 17,359,592 for the self-denunciation of the original purchase cost of KRW 35,912,258, and KRW 17,359,592 for the self-denunciation of the original purchase cost of KRW 8,00,000 for other spent expenses) to the Plaintiff, the Defendant

2. As to whether the contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as claimed by the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize the same by only the descriptions of health room, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 13-1, and Eul evidence 13-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, there is no contract for discretionary processing made directly between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the witness E’s testimony and oral argument. In addition, even according to the contract submitted by the Plaintiff (Evidence No. 13-2), even according to the contract submitted by the Plaintiff, the contract party is "F," the defendant is a company located in Vietnam other than the Defendant, and the defendant is a legal entity separate from the Defendant. In addition, as to the fact that the Defendant is the same legal entity, there is no specific proof of the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant were also the same, the subject of the supply of the goods after receiving them and secondary materials from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant concluded the contract against the Plaintiff.

arrow