logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.08.27 2018나1213
물품대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacture and sales of the main body with the trade name of “C”. 2) The Defendant operated D 1 points in Gangwon-si, and opened D 2 points (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) around April 11, 2018.

B. 1) On April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) the goods indicated in the attached list, such as the bridges, middle sirens, and air conditioners, to be installed in the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant goods”); (b) around April 5, 2018.

A) A total of KRW 20,821,719 (including value-added tax) was supplied to B. (2) On April 5, 2018, the Defendant signed to the effect that E, the husband of the instant goods, took over the instant goods at the time.

3) The instant goods were installed in the instant restaurant and used in the restaurant. (c) On April 12, 2018, the Plaintiff received KRW 3,000,000 as part of the instant goods price. D. On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Plaintiff would pay the unpaid KRW 17,821,719 (i.e., KRW 20,821,719 - KRW 3,000,000) out of the instant goods price to the Defendant by July 25, 2018. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a divorce lawsuit against E on February 13, 2018, and thereafter filed a divorce lawsuit against E on July 6, 2018 (reconciliation recommendation around November 2018).

(ii) [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry in Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Determination

A. On April 5, 2018, upon receiving a request from the Defendant for the supply of goods for operating the instant restaurant, the Plaintiff received the instant goods from the co-manager of the instant restaurant and the Defendant’s husband, and received the Defendant’s signature in the transaction statement from E. After then, the Defendant paid KRW 3,00,000 as part of the instant goods price via E on April 12, 2018. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 17,821,719 as the unpaid goods price. (2) Accordingly, the Defendant did not know about the transaction related to the instant goods, and did not object to the Plaintiff.

arrow