logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.05.07 2018나60406 (1)
물품대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, and each entry of Gap evidence 3-1 to 4 is acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings. The above facts are insufficient to reverse the above recognition only with Eul evidence 1, and some entries of Eul evidence 2 are not counter-proof.

On October 11, 2016, the Defendant was transferred from Nonparty C a D automobile under the name of the said company (hereinafter “instant automobile”).

B. After that, the instant motor vehicle was destroyed and thus requiring repair, and the Plaintiff provided necessary parts for repair of the instant motor vehicle, and the Defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff as down payment on February 20, 2017.

C. On June 2017, the Plaintiff supplied parts for the repair of the instant automobile to the Maintenance Company, and around July 2017, the instant automobile repair was completed, and the Defendant paid KRW 7,000,000 as the repair cost.

The written estimate on July 4, 2017 prepared by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “written estimate”) on the instant motor vehicle includes KRW 13,544,300, and the said amount includes KRW 5,163,180.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff alleged by the party shall seek payment of KRW 8,544,300, excluding KRW 5,000,000 already paid out of KRW 13,544,30 based on the written estimate of this case, and damages for delay.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that there is no obligation to pay the cost of parts of the instant vehicle, and that the cost of parts of indoor floor and air conditioners are not acceptable among the cost of parts stated in the written estimate of this case.

B. According to the above facts of recognition 1, the defendant should bear the costs of parts of the instant vehicle.

arrow