logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.24 2014가합3516
유류대금
Text

1. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: USD 262,564.92 in U.S. dollars and its currency 241.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a legal entity established in accordance with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Act in the People's Republic of China for the purpose of the sale and purchase of oil, etc. to be supplied to the ship, and the defendant A corporation (hereinafter "the defendant corporation") is a Korean legal entity established in December 10, 208 for the purpose of oil brokerage business, etc., and the defendant B is the representative of the defendant corporation.

B. If the Plaintiff supplies oil to the Defendant Company from July 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company continued to trade the oil in the way that the Defendant Company pays the oil to the Plaintiff. Of these, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company entered into a fuel supply contract with the following terms (hereinafter “instant oil supply contract”) around January 27, 2012. Accordingly, on January 28, 2012, the Defendant Company entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the oil supply (hereinafter “instant oil supply contract”). From the Plaintiff’s 220 main tons of marine fuel oil and the name of the vessel to be supplied via: (i) 220 metric tons: (ii) 220 metric tons; (iii) 947 U.S. dollars; (iv) 208, 3400 metric tons; (iv) 300 metric tons; (iv) 300 metric tons; (v) 300 metric tons; and (v) 300 metric or 300 metric.

When payment is made after the above deadline, 2% interest of 5% per month under the terms of the contract of us (Plaintiff) shall be added.

The payment deadline: The character was supplied on February 26, 2012.

C. As above, the Defendant Company did not pay the price for oil supplied by the Plaintiff. On July 10, 2012, and August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff’s written application for amendment of the Plaintiff’s claim and the Defendants’ written reply on July 17, 2014, stated “ August 14, 2012.” However, in light of the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 4-2 and the Defendants’ remaining written statements, the said “the August 14, 2012” is deemed to be “the foregoing.”

arrow