(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.26 2014가합23640

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.26 2014가합23640

유체동산인도

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a party-based specialized construction business chain, leased and used materials from the Defendant, a distributor, from around 200, from around 200.

B. On May 6, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sold the temporary materials owned by the Defendant and the Plaintiff at their own 20 construction sites to the Defendant at KRW 3.5 billion (excluding value-added tax). However, a contract under which the Plaintiff leases and uses them at the site (hereinafter “the first contract of this case”).

(2) On June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded on May 4, 2010 a contract with the effect that the items and quantity of temporary materials subject to the above contract are reduced and the sales amount is changed to KRW 2.28 billion (including value-added tax).

(hereinafter “the second contract”). Details of the amended contract are the same as the contract executed on May 6, 2010, except for the purchase price and the subject matter.

From May 6, 2010 to June 8, 2010, the Defendant paid all the purchase price of KRW 2.28 billion to the Plaintiff.

3) On October 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant as of July 26, 2010 (hereinafter “the third contract of this case”) under which the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to substitute the pump from the subject matter of the above sales contract with other wire elements, and entered into an agreement with the Defendant to change the amount of other materials equivalent to the value, excluding the water pumps, from the subject matter of the above sales contract (hereinafter “the third contract of this case”).

A) Meanwhile, at the time of entering into each of the instant contracts, the Defendant did not verify whether the temporary materials subject to the contract are actually being used at the construction site. 4) The provisions pertaining to the delivery and loss of each of the instant contracts are as follows.

Article 5 (Compensation Method and Unit Price for Loss) (1) of the First Contract for the instant case: The ownership of Party A (Defendant) is terminated as the Plaintiff lost possession of the instant property due to its defect, loss, non-payment, etc.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2021.04.14 2020가합1057

-서울동부지방법원 2019.01.16 2018나23898

-수원지방법원여주지원 2015.12.03 2015가합10485

-청주지방법원 2015.11.25 2015가합431

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.11 2013가합66114