(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.11.16 2015나8685 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2016.11.16 2015나8685

물품대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that produces and supplies FRP CASE for bus air-conditioning, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and supplies automobile parts as its business.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a basic contract for trade related to the supply of FRP CASE for buses (hereinafter “the instant basic contract”). The main contents are as follows.

§ 3(1) Payment period means the time when the defendant supplies the object (which refers to the material for individual contracts; hereinafter the same shall apply) to a specific place and the import inspection is completed, and enters into the parts warehouse.

Article 9 (1) The defendant shall conduct an import inspection whenever the plaintiff delivers the object.

In such cases, the detailed matters concerning the criteria for the inspection, such as the criteria for the joint examination by the defendant shall be determined by a separate defendant.

Article 14 (1) If the object of the import inspection under Article 9 fails to pass the inspection, the defendant shall notify the plaintiff of this fact, and the plaintiff shall accept it without delay.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is 8,557,030 won out of the price of FRP CAS CASE (hereinafter “instant price for goods”) supplied to the Defendant from December 2012 to October 2013.

Since the defendant is not paid the above price, the defendant is obligated to pay the above price to the plaintiff. (2) The defendant did not accept the goods indicated in the transaction specification related to the price of the goods in this case because import inspection did not proceed, and rather, the plaintiff is responsible for recovering the goods pursuant to Article 14 of the Framework Agreement on Trade concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant does not bear the obligation to pay the above goods to the plaintiff. Even if the defendant is recognized as the obligation to pay the price of the goods in this case

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2021.04.21 2019가단123013

-인천지방법원 2019.08.30 2018가단213131

-창원지방법원통영지원 2017.11.28 2015가단2972 (1)

-광주지방법원해남지원 2017.09.13 2016가합3342

-창원지방법원 2016.07.13 2015가합32837