(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.18 2015나42091

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) 수원지방법원 2016.10.18 2015나42091

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied advertising materials equivalent to KRW 25,211,725 to the Defendant from May 201 to September 2012, 201, but did not receive KRW 5,736,491 up to now, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of the Plaintiff and the damages for delay.

B. Although the defendant alleged that he had transacted with the plaintiff for a certain period of time, the defendant did not have a duty to pay all the price of the goods, and since the price claimed by the plaintiff was derived from the transactional relationship with B, not the defendant.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 6, the Plaintiff supplied advertising materials equivalent to KRW 25,211,725 in total from May 201 to September 15, 2012 as the location of the Defendant’s business establishment, and issued tax invoices in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant filed a tax return according to the details of the tax invoice, and the amount of the goods was paid through the account in the name of the Defendant’s spouse until May 30, 2012, and was transferred in the name of a third party, not only KRW 2,50,000,000 in total, from October 16, 2012 to May 30, 2013; and the fact that C, its spouse, signed by the Defendant’s spouse, to December 28, 2011, confirmed that the amount of goods remaining until December 28, 201, is KRW 8,201,422.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the above price of the goods as a party to the transaction, and even if the plaintiff was supplied the above goods from the plaintiff, the plaintiff has issued a tax invoice in the future while supplying the goods to the defendant's business place in the same manner as that of the defendant's previous transaction with the defendant, and the defendant has completed the tax return, and the defendant was signed by the defendant's spouse C and remitted the price in its name.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.05.19 2015가단126806

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.10.27 2016가단2842

-부산지방법원 2019.11.29 2018나6478

-의정부지방법원 2018.10.05 2017나8754

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.23 2014가합551107