logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.11.01 2016나57570
물품대금
Text

1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 4,872,00 and this shall apply.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells ready-mixed, etc., and the Defendant is a person who runs an agricultural product processing business, etc. in the name of “C” in Jeonnam-gun B.

B. On February 4, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied Redchi Factory and Facilities Construction Site (hereinafter “instant construction site”) of the said “C” operated by the Defendant. The value of ready-mixed supplied as above is KRW 4,872,00 (including value-added tax).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, witness D and E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, the primary cause of the claim, upon D’s introduction, entered into a supply contract with the Defendant, and supplied ready-mixed 84 U.S.M. at the construction site of this case.

However, since the Defendant did not pay the price for ready-mixed supplied as above, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of 4,872,000 won for ready-mixed and the delay damages therefor.

B. If it is not recognized that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of ready-mixed with the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment of 4,872,00 won and interest and damages for delay equivalent to the above ready-mixed price, as the Defendant received 84 Rab from the Plaintiff without any legal ground.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the main claim 1) Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, testimony of witness E, and the whole purport of the pleadings as follows: ① there was no express ready-mixed supply contract between the plaintiff and the defendant; ② The statement of transaction made by the plaintiff on September 30, 2013 is written as the name of the construction (on the spot B A), but the recipient is written as D. Thus, the above statement of transaction is written as the party to the supply contract.

arrow