(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.22 2018나55885

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.22 2018나55885

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. As from June 11, 2010, the Plaintiff has sold sanitary instrument, date, and building materials in the trade name “C”.

On July 26, 2013, the Defendant and D contracted the construction of neighborhood living facilities on the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and four lots of land (hereinafter “instant construction”) to E Co., Ltd. (the representative F) with the cost of construction KRW 650,000,000.

From March 26, 2014 to April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied 6,316,200 won to other day and temporary public materials (hereinafter “other day, etc.”) at the instant construction site.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant bears the duty to pay the price of supply as long as he delivered the instant different dates at the construction site of this case. However, the defendant is merely the owner who contracted the construction of this case to E corporation, and the owner of the building where the instant different dates, etc. are used does not necessarily bear the duty to pay the price of supply. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

The plaintiff's assertion seems to include the purport that the defendant directly purchased the instant different dates, etc., but it is merely a notification of the plaintiff's assertion to the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

Rather, the actual contents of Gap evidence No. 3 (written claim) are written by the receiver as "the head of the E CompanyH," and the name of the defendant or D is not written. In light of this, it is reasonable to see that the purchaser of the other day, etc. of this case is the E Company, the contractor of the instant construction.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance court, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and thus revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.22 2016나31861

-부산지방법원 2015.05.12 2014가단75789

-서울고등법원 2014.10.01 2014누3503

-서울북부지방법원 2020.04.22 2019고단4667

-수원지방법원 2016.04.14 2015나25621