logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.22 2015나2006768
전부금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this case is as follows, except for the modification and addition of the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Following the 6th page of the 6th amendment and addition, “this legal doctrine is the same in cases where the same person has served the same date in the application for multiple attachment and assignment orders based on multiple claims.”

Part 7 4 through 13 shall be deleted, and a new one shall be made as follows:

In this regard, according to the goods contract of this case, the plaintiff asserts that if the logistics unit cost to be supplied to the large amount of the defendant is incurred, the defendant can deduct the above goods distribution cost by paying the goods price to the large amount of the defendant, not the goods distribution cost naturally deducted from the goods price, but the goods distribution cost should not be deducted if the large quantity of the delivery places are the final goods price. Thus, at the time of delivery of each assignment order of this case, the above goods distribution cost should not be deducted from the goods price claim of this case.

On the other hand, the facts and circumstances revealed by each evidence adopted above, i.e., large-scale goods delivery places, which are not final goods delivery places, shall pay a fixed amount to the defendant as the distribution expenses. The defendant agreed to deduct the above distribution expenses from the price of the goods to be paid to the large amount. The delivery places of the goods from February 20, 2013 where the price of the goods in this case occurred are the distribution center, such as the defendant's dwarf and Pyeongtaek-si, and the distribution expenses to be borne by the defendant to be deducted from the price of the goods are the expenses to be borne by the defendant to deliver the goods from the distribution center to the final entry at his own expense.

arrow