(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.02.17 2015가단32482

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) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.02.17 2015가단32482

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s 18,367.43 US dollars and 6% per annum from April 14, 2013 to May 22, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff supplied building stones equivalent to USD 25,367,43 to the Defendant on April 14, 2013, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the price for goods to USD 25,367,43 on April 18, 2013, whichever was later remitted to USD 7,000 on April 18, 2013, is either a dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of each of the statements and all of the arguments stated in subparagraphs A and 3.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the balance of 18,367,43 dollars and delay damages for the remainder of the price of goods, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.

2. On April 18, 2013, the Defendant made a settlement agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff would settle damages incurred from the defect of the product with the exception of USD 7,000, out of the price of the product as the price of the product. Accordingly, the Defendant paid USD 7,00 to the Plaintiff as the price of the product. The Defendant asserts that the obligation to pay the remainder of KRW 7,00 was extinguished.

It is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the settlement of accounts claimed by the Defendant only with the respective descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and 7 through 9 (including each number), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if there are some defects in the goods supplied before the Plaintiff based on each of the above evidence, it is difficult to recognize that there was a settlement agreement asserted by the Defendant solely on such circumstance, and it is difficult to evaluate reasonable settlement amount due to defects as there is no specific proof on the scope and gravity of defects.

In addition, even though the settlement agreement claimed by the defendant is relatively large (20 million won or more), the defendant has not submitted objective evidence directly related thereto.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion: USD 18,367,43 of the goods price to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff regarding this.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.06.18 2014가단224643

-서울서부지방법원 2018.03.07 2016가단222111

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.10 2019가단5250551

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.07.22 2019가단22066

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.12 2016가합563746