logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.09.05 2016나7751
단말기대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a credit card terminal installation business, and the Defendant is a person who runs a lodging and restaurant business in the name of "D" in Hongcheon-gun C, Gangwon-do, and a housing construction and sales business in the name of "F" in E.

B. 1) Upon receipt of a request from the Defendant for the installation of one portable credit card device to be used at F-place of business, the Plaintiff installed one portable credit card device with the monthly payment of KRW 528,000 in KRW 11,00 on September 6, 201, and with the monthly payment of KRW 11,000. 2) In addition, the Plaintiff was requested from the Defendant to install one device for the credit card device of KRW 528,000 in KRW 528,00 in KRW 1,212,00 in KRW 2,640 in total,00 in KRW 55,00 in KRW 48 months on November 5, 2012.

C. The Defendant paid KRW 253,00 with the device price installed in F, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 275,000 (=528,000 - 253,000). The Defendant paid KRW 143,00 with the device price installed in D, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 2,497,00 (=2,640,000 - 143,000).

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a total amount of KRW 2,772,00 (=275,000,000,000,000 for unpaid installation of the F Terminal) and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 28, 2016 to September 5, 2017, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition.

arrow