(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.01.20 2015나11036

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) 대구지방법원 2016.01.20 2015나11036

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who has run retail business, such as a main bank, etc., with the trade name D from the fifth floor of the Busan metropolitan transportation Daegu C building.

B. The Defendant received goods from D by November 21, 201.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The assertion and its judgment

A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff purchased goods amounting to KRW 6,298,00 from May 13, 201 to November 14, 201 of the same year from D’s operation of the Plaintiff. On September 30, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of goods and damages for delay, since the Defendant paid KRW 1,098,000 out of the price of the above goods and did not pay KRW 5,20,000.

In this regard, the defendant purchased goods from E and F, not the plaintiff, and paid all the price for the goods purchased by him to E and F, and even if the price for the goods unpaid remains.

Even if the extinctive prescription is completed, the plaintiff's claim is groundless.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 of the judgment as to the cause for the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 2,042,00 and damages for delay, barring any special circumstance, since the Defendant’s price for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff’s operator D by November 21, 201 is recognized as 2,042,00.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was merely the president of the above D's name, and that he purchased goods from E and F, not the plaintiff, but only purchased goods from E and F, but it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's above argument only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the defendant's argument

C. As to the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription and the Plaintiff’s second defense, the Defendant, even if having determined the amount of goods unpaid, remains.

The plaintiff's claim for the amount of unpaid goods against the defendant.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.08.25 2019나4398

-수원지방법원 2020.09.23 2019나10276

-서울남부지방법원 2020.12.11 2020가합113557

-인천지방법원 2015.03.27 2015가단2415

-대구지방법원 2020.11.11 2020나300662