(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.11.25 2015가합1796

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.11.25 2015가합1796

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On September 2, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the sale of goods with the content that the Plaintiff supplies the Switzerland presses and noise stuffs to the Defendant for the price of KRW 222,44 million. On November 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant supplied the said goods to the Defendant on the ground that the defect occurred in the said goods, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on the basis of labor cost and material cost, including the subsequent goods supplied.

On April 5, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the sale of goods with the content that the Plaintiff supplied the Switzerland file to the Defendant for a price of KRW 480 million. On November 2010, the Plaintiff refused to pay the said goods when the defect was discovered. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 270 million as the price for each of the goods.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 270 million won to the plaintiff as the price for each of the above goods.

2. In light of the judgment, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to pay 270 million won to the plaintiff as the price for each of the above goods, and the defendant asserts that each of the above goods-price claim asserted by the plaintiff expired by the prescription. The above goods-price claim constitutes the price for the goods sold by the merchant and its extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act. The fact that each of the above goods-price claim falls under the price for the goods sold by the merchant. The fact that the payment period for each of the above goods is around November 2010 is no dispute between the parties, and it is apparent that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on May 15, 2015 after three years from the lawsuit of this case. Thus, each of the above goods-price claim was extinguished by the prescription

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it appears to be a mother or there is no reason to do so, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민법 제163조 제6호

유사 판례

-부산고등법원(창원) 2017.05.25 2016나24942

-서울고등법원 2015.03.19 2014나2022015

-서울고등법원 2017.09.01 2016나2084321

-창원지방법원통영지원 2016.10.27 2016가합277

-대전지방법원 2017.11.28 2017나4025