(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.09.01 2016나58603

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) 광주지방법원 2017.09.01 2016나58603

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a wholesale and retail business of livestock products, and the defendant runs a sales business of livestock products.

The Plaintiff supplied the livestock products to C, and supplied the Defendant with KRW 22,017,50,00,000 from November 26, 2015 to January 21, 2016. The Defendant paid KRW 11,970,000,000 as the price for part of the livestock products.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 10,047,500 won to the plaintiff for the remainder of the goods.

B. The defendant's assertion did not conclude a contract for the supply of goods with the plaintiff, and only partially deposited the price of goods with the plaintiff's account upon the request of C.

2. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the defendant and C may be found to have remitted the sum of KRW 9,700,000 to the Plaintiff’s account from December 30, 2015 to January 13, 2016.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, it is insufficient to recognize that the above recognition alone was concluded with the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

① Since 2014, C was supplied with goods from the Plaintiff and provided to the Defendant, etc., and the Plaintiff prepared a confirmation document stating that the goods are supplied to the Defendant and the goods are not supplied to the Defendant.

② The Plaintiff had transacted with C prior to the transaction with the Defendant, but suspended the transaction due to non-payment of the price for goods, and won the purchase price for goods as the Gwangju District Court 2016 Ghana 506150 against C, and thereafter, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that C requested the supply of goods to the store established by the Defendant, who is the birth. However, the said lawsuit against the Defendant is against the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.04.20 2016가단14959

-광주지방법원 2015.07.09 2014가단40638

-대전지방법원 2015.05.15 2014나7467

-수원지방법원 2019.01.17 2018나59465

-수원지방법원여주지원 2017.08.31 2017가단51674