logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2021.01.13 2019가단107540
손해배상(기)
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

The facts are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff (a) from around 2014 to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) imported clothing raw materials, such as leather and hair, by opening a credit; and (b) the Defendant entered into a business agency contract for processing and selling the above raw materials through customs clearance.

F introduced clothing to the Plaintiff as a factory, and on September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the supply and supply of raw materials (i.e., “the instant raw materials supply contract”) with the Defendant, which the Defendant would process as clothing and deliver it to the place designated by the Plaintiff between March 30, 2016.

On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff received a invoice from a foreign company to import 600 U.S. dollars 51,928.80 U.S. dollars.

The above head of the invoice, in the name of the Defendant, states that the Plaintiff’s minging finished product is supplied to the Plaintiff’s brand business entity by November 15, 2015, and that it is supplied by November 20, 2015 to the Plaintiff’s brand business entity by November 20, 2015 (see, e.g., “A” No. 6-1, 2, and invoice numbers, as above, are written in the two invoices of the same invoice. As to this, the Defendant stated that the name tag was attached, but the above phrase was not directly written). The Plaintiff’s minc, and minc and sex group imported by the Plaintiff around October 2015 was delivered to the Defendant’s address.

The Defendant processed the minc and Bosch Rexroth imported by the Plaintiff into minc and mincing sets, and supplied F with a total of 166 units from October 14, 2015 to November 26, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 6, 7 evidence, Eul 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 evidence, the witness G testimony, and the ground for the entire argument, the defendant did not deliver to the plaintiff a kind of paper processed to the plaintiff even after being supplied with minc and mincs in accordance with the raw material supply contract of this case.

arrow