logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.12.14 2016가합41077
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 7,601,100 to Plaintiff B and 5% per annum from January 19, 2016 to December 14, 2016; and (b).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. A contract, etc. between the Plaintiff Company A and the Defendant, etc.) Defendant around October 2012, 2012, the Defendant is a company holding company with large-scale nursing machinery (hereinafter “large-scale nursing machinery”).

2) As between the Defendant and the case, the Defendant’s case franchise (CASESCE MESON, hereinafter “instant case”).

(2) The Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) to supply C necessary for the production of the instant case (hereinafter “instant product”) to the Defendant.

In the process of preparing for the delivery of the instant product, the Plaintiff A requested the Defendant to first lease the manufacturing cost of the equipment to manufacture the said product, and the Defendant delivered these circumstances to the Defendant, and on October 31, 2012, leased KRW 100 million to the Defendant with the substitute machine.

3) Plaintiff A is a facility for manufacturing the instant product within the Defendant’s factory (hereinafter “instant facility”).

(4) Plaintiff A supplied the instant product to the Defendant from April 2013 to September 2013, 2013.

However, there was a defect in the case produced by the defendant, and the defendant discontinued the production of the case.

5) The Defendant repaid KRW 100,000 per month from May 15, 2013 to December 15, 2014, KRW 500,000,000 per month on 15th, respectively. (b) Plaintiff B, the representative director of Plaintiff B, was requested by the Defendant on August 6, 2015, and visited the Defendant’s factory upon receipt of a request from Plaintiff B, who was the representative director of Plaintiff B, to receive the penalty damaged by the Defendant.

2) The Plaintiff B’s approach to the HWS type equipment installed in the Defendant’s factory and stopped, and the HWS type equipment revolving the Plaintiff B’s bridge part (hereinafter “instant accident”).

As a result, Plaintiff .

arrow