(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.15 2016가합107859

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.15 2016가합107859

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 794,694,440 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from August 25, 2016 to November 15, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a company that conducts manufacturing business within women's clothes, etc., and the defendant is a company that sells women's clothes with the trademark "C".

In manufacturing the product, Article 2 (C) of the supply contract of this case / [Plaintiff] of the supply contract of this case shall, in principle, raise and use the raw and subsidiary materials in accordance with the production instruction of Gap [Defendant].

Article 6 (Inspection)

1. Eul shall complete the inspection of products manufactured by Gap, a person designated by Gap, or an institution, and provide all kinds of preparation and convenience for inspection;

Article 9 (Supply of Goods)

3. B shall strictly observe the delivery date;

4. The delivery place shall be the place designated by Gap; and

5. The return of goods after delivery and all the disposal and costs arising therefrom shall be liable.

In addition, the damages of Gap due to defective products should be compensated to Eul under mutual consultation.

Article 12 (Failure of Supply of Goods)

1. Quantity: Where the quantity of supply by Eul is below the contract, 100% of the supply price for the deficient quantity shall be paid to Gap as compensation for damage;

2. Payment period: Where Eul violates the payment period, he/she shall compensate for the amount equivalent to 1/1,000 of the daily delivery price per damages for delay, and where he/she delays the payment period for at least ten days, he/she shall apply by increasing the rate of delayed compensation.

B. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of products (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with the Defendant, and the Defendant intended to produce and provide the clothes in the sale via the home shopping broadcasting of Company D (hereinafter “D”).

C. Under the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the 7th broadcast portion (hereinafter “the 8th broadcast portion”), and agreed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant supply the 8th broadcast portion under the same condition.

The Plaintiff was making most clothes in the Gain Factory of the Gisung Industrial Complex, but January 20, 2016.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.17 2013가합9036

-서울동부지방법원 2020.09.18 2020나22799

-수원지방법원 2021.01.14 2017가단538458

-서울동부지방법원 2012.12.18 2011가단47474