(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2017.11.23 2016가단56538

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) 전주지방법원군산지원 2017.11.23 2016가단56538

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 99,073,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 26, 2016 to November 23, 2017.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. A. Around March 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) cultivated a non-use-free seed from the Defendant and supplied the Defendant with a total of KRW 516,700 km from November 29, 2015 to December 10, 2015; (b) determined the unit price at the time to be KRW 800 in one column (4km); (c) normally, after weighing the weight without weight, 5% of the amount of supply, which is the sum of 2% of the amount of supply, 3% of the amount of supply, 5% of the amount of soil reduction at the time of calculating the price of supply; or 5% of the amount of supply, which is either a dispute between the parties or a dispute between the parties; and (d) evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of oral arguments.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 98,173,00 (=516,700km/4k) x 800 won x 1-05).

B. The Defendant promised that the Plaintiff would pay the price for the supply to C, which is a branch of the Defendant’s identical industry, if the Plaintiff supplied free of charge to C. The Plaintiff supplied free of charge (which is after applying the basic reduction rate of 5%, referring to the evidence No. 5) of KRW 20 million to C during the period from November 23, 2015 to November 20, 2015. After that, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, the fact that there remains no dispute between the parties, or that there remains the price for KRW 10 million by paying KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions No. 4 and 5.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 with the supply price without delivery to C.

2. First of all, the defendant's argument that the reduction rate of 3 to 50% should be applied because the plaintiff's no commercial goods are included in the supplied non-commercial goods. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Even according to C’s recording (No. 7) submitted by the Defendant as a statement favorable to himself, only the fact that the basic reduction is 5% is recognized.

In the above recording recording, C is the reduction ratio claimed by the defendant.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2020.05.27 2019나2639

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.01.17 2016가단262

-청주지방법원 2017.02.02 2016나2230

-창원지방법원거창지원 2015.11.17 2015가단1319

-창원지방법원 2018.12.21 2018나51000