(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.22 2014가단40612

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.22 2014가단40612

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 70,677,00,00, such as double windows, etc., and thereafter paid KRW 3,00,000, which was not paid as of the closing date of the pleadings of the instant case, did not conflict between the parties, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the price for the goods 67,677,000 and the delayed payment thereof.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s final transaction with the Plaintiff was around August 10, 2007, and the payment of goods was agreed to be made within one month after the completion of the construction. Since the construction was completed on December 3, 2007, the due date for the payment of goods was January 4, 2008, and three years thereafter, the due date for the payment of goods was expired.

The Plaintiff’s claim for the price of the goods against the Defendant constitutes the price of the goods and goods sold by the producer and merchant, and thus, the short-term extinctive prescription of three years is applied pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act. The evidence submitted by the Defendant (Evidence B(Evidence B(Evidence B) is not a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to directly recognize that the payment date of the price of the goods was January 4, 2008. Meanwhile, even according to the statement of Evidence A(Evidence A) submitted by the Plaintiff, even according to the statement of Evidence A(Evidence 1), the estimate date of the transaction statement sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is August 10, 207

8. The facts indicated in 29. The total balance of the goods price in the said statement corresponds to the amount initially claimed by the Plaintiff at KRW 70,677,000, and the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff traded with the Defendant by December 2, 2011 at the instant complaint, however, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff submitted the instant complaint on December 2, 2014, it appears to have asserted as above in order to prevent the lapse of the three-year extinctive prescription period, and otherwise, there was no data to acknowledge that the Plaintiff traded with the Defendant by December 2, 2011.

참조조문

-민법 제163조 제6호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.01.08 2013나29391

-수원지방법원 2020.05.20 2019나70629

-부산지방법원 2018.05.30 2017나55565

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2015.11.17 2015가단1237

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.11.18 2015가단14528