(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2017.11.01 2016가단24409

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) 청주지방법원충주지원 2017.11.01 2016가단24409

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the company that manufactures the Plaintiff’s water lawsuit, and the Defendants received and distributed the water lawsuit products from the Plaintiff from May 2014.

In other words, around April 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a distribution agreement with the Defendants with oral terms as follows.

(1) The Defendants are asked from the business partners that they want to distribute to deliver the instant product.

(2) The Defendants shall set the sales proceeds from the sale of goods set by the Plaintiff to the customer with their margin attached thereto.

(3) The defendant shall prepare a transaction statement based on the above matters and request the plaintiff to supply the product.

④ The Plaintiff shall issue a tax invoice requested to the customer according to the details of the transaction statement and deliver the products directly.

(5) The Customer shall pay the sales proceeds set by the Defendants to the Plaintiff’s account after receiving the products.

6. The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant B the margin of the Defendants, which was deducted from the sales proceeds paid by the Plaintiff from the customer.

In accordance with the above distribution contract, even though the Plaintiff supplied the physical issues worth KRW 59,714,963 in total from May to August 8, 2014, the Defendants paid only KRW 26,141,670.

In addition, the Plaintiff paid 17,418,000 won on behalf of the Defendants for the design and films of the physical dust packing film.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 50,91,293 and damages for delay.

B. The Defendants did not carry out their own distribution business upon entering into a verbal contract with the Plaintiff, and merely carried out business in the sales place under employment of the Plaintiff company, and thus, they do not have a duty to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim

2. First of all, we examine whether a distribution contract has been concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

The evidence Nos. 6, Eul Nos. 1 through 9, and 14 shall be issued.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.06.09 2016가합1034

-수원지방법원 2014.10.31 2014고단4084

-광주지방법원 2014.06.17 2014고단1172

-서울서부지방법원 2015.05.28 2012가합6561

-서울서부지방법원 2013.05.28 2013고단256