(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.12.01 2016나2030416

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) 서울고등법원 2016.12.01 2016나2030416

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. The Plaintiff claimed the amount of KRW 2,570,00,000 for goods under the first contract on June 18, 2014, and the amount of KRW 1,100,523,00 for goods under the second contract on June 25, 2014, and damages for delay. The first instance court recognized the Defendant’s duty to pay the amount of goods and the amount of damages for delay, and rejected a counterclaim against the Defendant’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the said obligation to pay the amount of goods.

After the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered on May 27, 2016, the Defendant paid 650,680,238 won to the Plaintiff (i.e., 605,697,292 won 35,705,068 won 9,277,878 won) to the Plaintiff on December 9, 2014, which offsets the Plaintiff’s claim for return, such as unjust enrichment of KRW 1,100,523,00 under the second contract as of June 18, 2014 (i.e., 2, 570,000,000 won under the first contract as of June 25, 2014) against the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase of goods (i.e., 49,200,000 won for delay damages).

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to whether the Defendant’s price for the goods of June 25, 2014 was extinguished within the scope of KRW 650,680,238 due to the offset under the following 3 as the grounds for appeal.

2. The court's explanation concerning this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding or supplementing a judgment on the matters asserted as the ground of appeal by the defendant to the corresponding part, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal and determination thereof

A. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion as to KRW 605,697,292 in total due to the supply of used used used in the demonstration line is to submit cost accounting data on the basis of new products even though the Plaintiff tried to recycle the engine and equipment of the pilot line. As such, the Defendant’s public official in charge is required to submit the cost accounting data.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.04.30 2015가합1737

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.02.03 2016가합75909

-서울행정법원 2019.04.11 2018구합81998

-서울고등법원 2018.05.31 2017나2052550

-부산지방법원 2015.06.24 2014가합9666