(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.18 2014가단212085

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 2015.05.18 2014가단212085

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 40,250,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from August 21, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was in charge of selling functional health foods, “the Formula 2,” imported by the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “the instant product”); (b) entered into a contract with the Defendant to transfer the Plaintiff Company to the Defendant when settlement of accounts for the instant product was completed; (c) the Defendant, etc. supplied 90 parts of the instant product to KRW 45,000 per unit; and (d) the Defendant, etc. was responsible for the remaining products by the end of February 2014; and (e) the Plaintiff Company entered into a contract with the Defendant to transfer the Plaintiff Company to the Defendant upon completion of the settlement of accounts for the products.

(hereinafter “instant product sales contract”). (b)

The Defendant et al. paid only KRW 250,000 as the sales price of the instant product to the Plaintiff Company even though the end of February 2014 was Do.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Company the sales proceeds of the non-paid product (=45,000 won x 900-250,000 won) and the delay damages therefrom.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant alleged a declaration of intention by duress asserts that the plaintiff entered into a sales agency agreement with the original defendant on the product of this case, but forced the defendant to enter into the sales contract of this case by pressure, such as having the defendant claim damages against the defendant who would not be easily sold due to the problem of the product.

In order to be a declaration of harm by coercion, it should be the other party's expression of harm or harm caused by the other party's expression of harm or harm illegally. In order for the coercion to be illegal, the profit pursued by the notice of harm or harm in light of the trade norms and circumstances at the time of the coercion act to be illegal, is not justifiable or the duress is not justified.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.05.17 2016가단27443

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.08 2017가단1852

-수원지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나40357

-부산지방법원 2016.11.17 2016가단19004

-부산지방법원 2018.08.29 2017나54463