(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.04.15 2014가단2070

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) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.04.15 2014가단2070

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff supplied food materials at the Defendant’s place of business from August 2, 2013 to September 23, 2013 at the Defendant’s request, and the Defendant returned part of the food materials supplied as above to the Plaintiff on September 7, 2013, and promised to pay the unpaid amount to the Plaintiff until October 2013, but did not pay the unpaid amount of supply. Thus, the Plaintiff did not receive the supply price of food materials of KRW 56,989,900 from the Defendant until now (hereinafter “instant supply price”).

(hereinafter “the first argument”). B.

Even if the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of delivered goods of this case against the Defendant is not recognized, the Plaintiff may claim payment of KRW 56,989,900, which constitutes the price of delivered goods of this case by subrogation as the creditor of the price of delivered goods of this case.

(hereinafter “Second Claim”). Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 56,989,900 and the delay damages therefor.

2. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 15 and Eul evidence Nos. 15 as to the first argument, the plaintiff (mutual C) is deemed to have issued a tax invoice as of October 29, 2013 with the value of supply of KRW 33,90,818 as the supplier, the plaintiff (mutual C) as the supplier, the plaintiff (mutual C) as the supplier, the person being supplied with the defendant, the amount of KRW 32,50,00 as the value of supply, the tax invoice as of December 31, 2013, the plaintiff (mutual C), the person being supplied with the defendant as the supplier, the amount of KRW 17,818,182 as the value of supply, and the fact that the plaintiff was paid the Defendant’s food materials at the business establishment around October 2013, and then is recognized to have been supplied with the supply price of KRW 37,98,399,3989,39.

However, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 25, Eul was entrusted by the defendant and D's hotel, container, and food room from August 2013 to September 20 of the same year.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.09.29 2017가단70492

-수원지방법원 2016.10.28 2016고합476

-광주지방법원 2015.10.29 2015가단11323

-춘천지방법원 2015.12.11 2015나2151

-인천지방법원 2015.10.21 2015가단205436