(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.03.04 2014가단36114

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.03.04 2014가단36114

사용료

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 41,00,000 as well as annual 6% from December 6, 2013 to March 4, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. A. Around May 2013, the Plaintiff traded with the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “B”) from 2003, and around May 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice by allowing the Plaintiff to reduce the unpaid goods price to KRW 72 million, which is the representative C of the Plaintiff Company, the representative director of the Defendant Company, and the unpaid goods price to KRW 72 million. The Defendant shall pay the unpaid goods to the Plaintiff from July 2013 to December 2013.

However, around July 2013, the Defendant paid only KRW 12 million, and the remainder KRW 60 million was unpaid.

The defendant is liable for the acquisition by transfer of B company or for it to the same company.

In addition, among the goods supplied between the Plaintiff and the Defendant from May 17, 2013 to October 12, 2013, the amount unpaid by the Defendant is KRW 42 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 95 million and damages for delay.

B. The defendant did not take over the obligation of the defendant B, and the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit.

Of the parts traded by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, E is not KRW 5 million, but KRW 4.5 million, and KRW 28 million, and KRW 8.5 million, since the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice in relation to G, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 8.5 million.

In addition, KRW 13.2 million paid by the defendant must be deducted from the above amount.

Therefore, the amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 10.8 million.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, as to whether to accept the obligation of the Plaintiff, the fact that the Defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 7,92 million, totaling KRW 1,32 million on July 26, 2013, KRW 1,32 million on the part of the video devices leased by the Plaintiff to Company B, KRW 1,32 million on August 27, 2013, KRW 1,32 million on November 5, 2013, KRW 3,96 million on November 5, 2013, and KRW 7,92 million on December 5, 2013, and the fact that the Defendant paid part of the above price directly to the Plaintiff can be acknowledged.

However, the above recognition alone assumes the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the goods that the Defendant assumed to the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2008.6.13.선고 2008나2149 판결

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.04.05 2017가단229504

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.11.28 2017가단109115

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.08.31 2014가단25229

-수원지방법원 2015.12.04 2014나10523