logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.06.11 2019나59629
물품대금
Text

1. Of the part concerning the conjunctive claim against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance, the following amount shall be ordered to be paid.

Reasons

1. The scope of this court’s trial at the first instance court, the Plaintiff primarily supplied the iron bars to Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) from August 14, 2017 to January 23, 2018, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay for the remainder of the steel contract during the said period, and sought payment for the amount of KRW 90,834,100 for the unpaid remainder of the steel contract during the said period and the damages for delay therefor, and the portion of the tax invoice issued to the Defendants C as the recipient of the preliminary supply during the said period is supplied to Defendant C, and the portion of the tax invoice issued to the Party E. The portion of the tax invoice was supplied to the Party B, and the Party B claimed that the Defendant B is jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the remainder of the steel contract, and claimed for payment for the remainder of the unpaid amount to the Defendants.

The first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim, and accepted the conjunctive claim against the defendant C and the conjunctive claim against the defendant C, and rejected the remainder of the conjunctive claim against the defendant C.

As to the part against which only the Defendants lost, the Plaintiff’s claim as to the portion of the tax invoice issued by Defendant C cannot be deemed to be in the primary preliminary co-litigation relationship. The Plaintiff’s claim as to the portion of the tax invoice issued by Defendant C and E as the recipient of Defendant E is in the primary preliminary co-litigation relationship. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim as to the portion of the tax invoice issued by Defendant C and E as the recipient of the primary co-litigation (28,875,000 won and damages for delay are claimed) was separated and confirmed as they did not appeal.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is the part against the Defendants among the judgment of the first instance.

arrow