logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.12.15 2015나41937
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

1...

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport (including the fact that there is no dispute) of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff supplied tamper, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods”) to the Defendant from August 1, 2012 to September 2013, and the Defendant can find out the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 5,808,000 out of the price of the instant goods. Thus, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,808,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as determined by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from June 11, 2015 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff’s final date of supply of the instant goods.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant asserts that the defendant does not bear the obligation to pay the plaintiff the price of the goods of this case, since there are defects such as the combination lids, contact defect, etc. of the goods of this case supplied by the plaintiff, some of them are re-processed and sold by the defendant with its own funds, and the remainder is stored in the defendant's warehouse.

(4) However, Article 69 of the Commercial Code does not clarify which the defendant legally claims, but all of the arguments of the defendant are based on the defense that the defendant's claims against the plaintiff for damages caused by defects in the goods of this case are set-off to the extent equal to the plaintiff's claims for the goods of this case, and the defendant does not remain due to the set-off of the amount equivalent to the plaintiff's claims for the goods of this case, and this paper examines this issue).In a case where the buyer receives the object in a transaction between merchants, it shall be inspected without delay, and where the seller fails to immediately dispatch the notice to the seller

arrow