(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.06.27 2018가단21509

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) 인천지방법원 2019.06.27 2018가단21509

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 59,181,806 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 7, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 11, the plaintiff supplied chemical substances such as nitrogen and sulfur oxide to the defendant from September 2009 to March 31, 2018, and it can be acknowledged that the price of goods not paid by the plaintiff until that time reaches KRW 59,181,806, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the price of the goods not paid to the defendant 59,181,806 and delay damages therefor.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations for part of the obligation has expired, and the amount equivalent to 44,490,344 won out of the unpaid amount of goods was jointly and severally guaranteed by the Defendant’s liability for the purchase of goods against the Plaintiff of the D company due to the Plaintiff’s strong pressure. Since the above purchase of goods against the Plaintiff of the D company has expired by the statute of limitations thereafter, the above joint and several surety obligation owed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff was extinguished due to the extinguishment of the principal obligation.

However, no evidence supporting the defendant's above assertion was submitted as documentary evidence, since the defendant did not appear at all on the three dates for pleading and the date for one court of the lawsuit before the court of the lawsuit, and the defendant did not submit documentary evidence attached to the reply, etc.

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the amount of set-off claim is set off against E, the representative director of the plaintiff company, as it holds the claim for refund of lease deposit equivalent to KRW 15,00,000.

However, in our legal system, legal entities and individuals are separate entities, so even if the defendant has a claim against E, the representative director of the plaintiff company, as otherwise alleged, it cannot offset the defendant's claim against the defendant's obligation to pay for the above goods. Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.01.29 2014가단50860

-전주지방법원 2017.09.20 2016가단35569

-서울북부지방법원 2019.01.24 2018가단115686

-수원지방법원 2018.08.24 2018가합11322

-수원지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가단44150