(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.12 2017가단8186

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) 부산지방법원 2017.09.12 2017가단8186

물품대금등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sold an electric set of KRW 1,759 to the Defendant for KRW 107,50,000.

The defendant exported 1,759 electric sets to China, and only part of the defendant's fault was returned to the plaintiff.

In other words, only 1,024 of the electricity set of 57,500,000 won was returned to the Plaintiff, the remainder of the electricity set was not returned, and there was no electric temperature saving machine and packing room required to be returned.

The value of the unpaid electric temperature control equipment and packing room shall be 13,160,000 won.

In the process, the plaintiff paid 10,000,000 won for warehouse storage to be borne by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the damages sustained by the Plaintiff are KRW 53,160,00 [=30,000 + [10,500,000 won + KRW 57,500 - 57,500,000] 10,000 which the Plaintiff received in advance from the Defendant - KRW 13,160,000]. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages and its delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's child B was merely a loan to the plaintiff's child during the export process and only the export declaration was filed in the name of the defendant, but the defendant did not purchase the plaintiff's electrical sheet from the plaintiff.

In the process of returning the electric sets, no error was made to the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument is unreasonable.

2. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 4 and No. 5 of the evidence No. 5 of the judgment, the defendant seems to have merely attempted the plaintiff to export the electric sets to China. In light of the fact that the plaintiff sold the electric sets of the plaintiff's assertion to the defendant by only the statement of No. 1 and No. 3, and that there is a negligence on the part of the defendant in the process of returning the electric sets to the plaintiff, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit to further examine.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.22 2014가단142452

-서울고등법원 2015.06.12 2014나57534

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.07.16 2014가합21547

-서울남부지방법원 2014.11.07 2013가합6156

-대전지방법원 2014.08.14 2013가단211947