(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단22516

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) 대구지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단22516

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) C sold agricultural products to the Defendant from around 2007. The Defendant promised to pay 11,594,000 won for the goods accrued until 2009 as KRW 1,00,000 each month from April 2010. 2) Thereafter, C established a corporation that engages in agricultural product processing and sales and took office as its representative. The Plaintiff sold agricultural products to the Defendant by March 12, 2013, which is after the establishment of the corporation, and on March 12, 2013, the amount of goods unpaid by the Defendant as of March 12, 2013 is KRW 21,464,50.

3. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 21,464,50 won for the above goods and damages for delay.

B. The defendant alleged that he was supplied with agricultural products from C individual and was supplied with agricultural products from the plaintiff corporation, and the defendant's obligation to pay goods to C was extinguished by the completion of prescription.

2. Therefore, in full view of the purport of the argument as to whether or not the Plaintiff sold agricultural products to the Defendant, C sells agricultural products from around 2007 to the Defendant from January 28, 2010, and the amount of goods unpaid as of January 28, 2010 was 11,00,500 won, and the Defendant prepared and delivered a borrowing certificate to the effect that the Defendant borrowed KRW 11,00,000 from C and then the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 3,493,000 out of the said money to C until February 13, 2010, and the remainder amount was 1,000 won from April 201.

However, only the above facts and evidence No. 2 are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff corporation, not an individual C, has a title to claim the price of the goods against the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.10.10 2018나22178

-부산지방법원 2019.07.12 2018나57902

-대구지방법원 2016.06.21 2015가단45878

-의정부지방법원 2019.05.29 2018가단10661

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.11.24 2016가단110220