(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.15 2017가단5093341

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 2018.03.15 2017가단5093341

매매대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,686,702 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 3, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Considering the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a company engaging in precious metal wholesale and retail business, etc. and engaged in wholesale and retail business under an agreement from around 2009 to around 2013 to the defendant who is engaged in wholesale and retail business to pay the amount of value-added tax equivalent to the value-added tax (including value-added tax). The plaintiff is the plaintiff who has no counter-proof and received KRW 131,159,70 out of the price of the above goods.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of 60,686,702 won (=191,846,402 won-131,159,700 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 3, 2016 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

As to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that the employee in charge of the plaintiff agreed to receive the return of the goods as required by the defendant and returned them according to the agreement, and thus, it cannot respond to the claim corresponding to this part. However, the circumstances recognized by the statement in Gap evidence 7-1 to 5, i.e., the plaintiff from January 24, 2014.

5. Even though a notice was sent to the defendant five times until 27. 27, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant made the above promise or returned, in light of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that the defendant had made any rebuttal, such as the defendant's assertion of return, etc. from that time during the long-term period of time prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, even though the notice was sent to the defendant for the payment of the price of the instant goods, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.22 2018나21011

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2018.07.11 2018가단300998

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.29 2014나54112

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.01 2015나36234

-대구지방법원 2015.12.04 2015나7938