(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.10.20 2014가단58725

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) 인천지방법원 2015.10.20 2014가단58725

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,60,853 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from July 24, 2014 to October 20, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. While the Plaintiff supplied B (hereinafter “B”) with the PE film, closed its business due to financial difficulties and changed its trade name into “C” and operated, the Plaintiff supplied the PE film to the Defendant from March 2013 to April 2014 (hereinafter “instant transaction”). The amount of goods supplied during the instant transaction period is KRW 184,103,953.

B. The defendant invested funds in B as the friendship of the representative director D, and operated C on the basis of human and physical facilities in B as it is difficult to operate due to financial difficulties, and continued to work in D.

C. The Plaintiff started transactions with the Defendant while the amount of the goods that was not recovered from B reaches KRW 0,000,000, and was paid in cash or in bills by the Defendant, the other party was divided into “C” and “B,” and written and issued a deposit slip.

Since then, there was a dispute between the original defendant and the defendant on the responsibility for the repayment of B's obligation, and on May 29, 2014, the plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding the defendant to pay KRW 28,60,853 of the credit amount to the defendant, and the defendant delivered the same year.

6. 9. The Plaintiff sent the content-certified mail demanding that the Plaintiff return the excess amount of KRW 6,152,982, upon attaching the transaction ledger prepared by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

E. Accordingly, on the 12th of the same month, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a reply by indicating that there is a difference between the tax invoice and the director of the Customer (Evidence No. 1) prepared by the Plaintiff and the director of the Customer (Evidence No. 2) prepared by the Defendant (Evidence No. 1-3), and the director of the Customer’s Office prepared by the Plaintiff stated a total of KRW 147,573,100 as the amount paid for

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, evidence 4 to 7, each entry of Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Parties’ assertion.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원(춘천) 2016.05.04 2015나1562

-수원지방법원 2020.09.23 2019나10276

-서울행정법원 2011. 11. 30. 선고 2011구합28615 판결

-인천지방법원 2015.06.11 2014가단43853

-수원지방법원 2019.09.19 2019나54924