(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.06.03 2016가단1045

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.06.03 2016가단1045

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,267,750 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from December 17, 2015 to June 3, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 3, together with the purport of the whole pleadings. The entry of Eul evidence 2 shall not interfere with the following recognition:

The plaintiff is engaged in the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of "C", and the defendant is engaged in salting, salting, and wholesale business with the trade name of "D."

B. The Defendant received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff in the form of advance payment or advance payment in order to raise salt funds.

C. On January 19, 2014, the Plaintiff arranged the Plaintiff’s account sales amounting to KRW 50 million on the account of advance payment with the Defendant as KRW 50 million, and agreed to deduct the Plaintiff’s purchase of goods from the Defendant by 30%, and pay only the remainder after deducting the value from the Defendant as the price for the goods.

Upon receipt of goods from the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the goods after deducting the amount under the above agreement. As of April 9, 2015, the Defendant’s payment for the remainder of the goods is KRW 47,267,750.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant is obligated to pay 47,267,750 won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion: (a) provided the Plaintiff with technical cooperation so that the Defendant may export goods to China; and (b) the Plaintiff agreed to pay rebates of KRW 100 or KRW 150 per kg to the Plaintiff; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant claimed that the amount equivalent to the rebates to be paid should be deducted or offset. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the agreement as alleged by the Defendant, and the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

C. Accordingly, according to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant's KRW 47,267,750 and this case's lawsuit is against the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.04.30 2014나39017

-의정부지방법원 2015.07.08 2015가합1120

-창원지방법원진주지원 2017.07.20 2016가합670

-의정부지방법원 2017.03.17 2016가단27801

-수원지방법원 2018.05.10 2017가단35829