(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.04.19 2017나59535

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 2018.04.19 2017나59535

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact 1) On June 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant (mutual name: C) on the transaction of fertilizer products, such as the Tetradry, supplied by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B) On June 25, 2014, in order to secure the obligation for the purchase of goods under the instant agreement, B completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with respect to one-fourths of KRW 100 million with respect to the maximum amount of debt, 39,008 square meters of D forest land in Gyeyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do. (2) The Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant and B from April 10, 2014 to January 27, 2015, but the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 90,120,000 for goods up to now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,120,000 for the goods priceing to KRW 90,120,00 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 26, 2017 to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion and determination purport that since the plaintiff refused to return goods due to defects in the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and thereafter returned them to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the price of the goods or must be deducted from the price of the goods.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone that the plaintiff suffered products of a standard different from the contract terms.

It is insufficient to recognize that there are defects in the goods supplied by the plaintiff or the goods supplied by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, so the defendant'

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted for reasons.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and thus, the defendant is the defendant.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.08.10 2017가단1909

-수원지방법원 2019.04.16 2018가단15556

-의정부지방법원 2020.04.21 2020가단104286

-대구지방법원 2016.03.15 2015가단44110

-대전지방법원 2017.07.05 2016가단29002