(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.11.30 2020가단50142

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) 제주지방법원 2020.11.30 2020가단50142

물품대금

Text

The defendant's KRW 31,395,000 for the plaintiff and 6% per annum from July 1, 2017 to February 6, 2020.

Reasons

The defendant claiming the plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff is a merchant who purchases mawn and mawn from farmers and sells it to others such as merchants.

In June 2017, the Defendant purchased 483 net 65,000 won per network from the Plaintiff on the first hand.

However, since the defendant did not pay the price of KRW 31,395,000 (=483 network x 65,000), the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 31,395,000 to the plaintiff and delay damages therefor.

The defendant's assertion does not have purchased the right of strike from the plaintiff, but only does not help the plaintiff sell the right of strike to C (main name D).

Judgment

First of the confirmation of the parties to the contract, we look at who is the other party to the contract who sells a scarb scarb in June 2017.

who is the party to the contract is a matter of interpretation of the party involved.

If the parties agree with each other, the parties to the contract shall be determined according to their intention.

However, if the intention of the parties is not consistent, it should be determined on the basis of which person was the party to the contract if the reasonable person is the party to the contract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da237691 Decided September 10, 2019, etc.). In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view the other party to the contract as the Defendant, in view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and evidence Nos. 3 (including additional numbers), witness D, and E’s testimony as an overall purport of the pleadings, or as being recognized or known in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings.

The defendant delivered to the plaintiff the name "F Representative G (the name used by the defendant)" and the name of the cell phone number, which includes the cell phone number, stated "483 network from June 30, 2017."

On the basis of the contents stated in the above order, the defendant is merely acting as a broker for a sales contract, as alleged by the defendant.

참조판례

-대법원 2019. 9. 10. 선고 2016다237691 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.10.24 2018나1724

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2021.04.09 2020가합391

-대전지방법원 2020.12.10 2020나92

-광주지방법원 2020.12.03 2019나5099

-대전지방법원서산지원 2020.01.15 2019가단670