logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.05.15 2017나401
물품대금
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was used by the court, “the judgment of the defendant’s defense” from No. 3 to No. 3, No. 12, is reversed as follows.

The Defendants’ assertion 1) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is as follows: (a) although the Plaintiff was obligated to keep, store, and transport the raw money purchased by Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) at a temperature below 5°C, the Plaintiff, on October 19, 2015, delivered 27,833,731 won by the negligence of an enterprise (C) which entered into a transport contract with the Plaintiff on October 19, 2015, which caused damage to the Defendant Co., Ltd. by delivering 27,83,731 won at a deep temperature. The Defendants cannot pay the balance of the credit purchase amount under the instant confirmation to the Plaintiff.

2) According to each description of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8, it is insufficient to recognize that the company that entered into a transport contract with the Plaintiff on October 19, 2015 delivered the land by negligence (including serial numbers) by the company that entered into the transport contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company paid regular transport expenses to the Transport Chain C at the time. Thus, it is difficult to accept the Defendants’ assertion that C was requested to deliver the land by negligence.

[2] Further, the defendants' statements and videos Nos. 4, 5, and 6 are not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendants suffered damage equivalent to the above amount by negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendants suffered damage. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendants' appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

arrow