logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.05.29 2014가합4140
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 110,400,000 as well as 6% per annum from March 12, 2014 to October 30, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The occurrence of a claim for the amount of gold;

(a) Basic facts;

(1) On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, who is engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts under the trade name B, to manufacture and supply the gold-type 18,000,000 won (i.e., KRW 490,000,000,000,000 won; KRW 490,000,000,000 won) of the gold-type 19,000,000 won (hereinafter “the gold-type”) from the Defendant who is engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts, and then deliver all of these gold-types to the Defendant on December 30, 2013.

B. However, the Defendant delivered the Plaintiff’s instant gold punishment to the UAD SUT UPR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s instant gold punishment”), which is the original owner, and, on the ground of some gold-type defects (3 set forth in the five gold-type gold-type), agreed that the Plaintiff would change the instant gold punishment to KRW 147,585,00 on March 11, 2014 (42,440,000,000,000,000 won, excluding the said three gold-types (30,000,000 won, 384,000,000 won,).

Secondly, the Defendant agreed to pay 150,540,000 won, which is the balance of the penalty at the time of payment, to the Plaintiff who delayed payment of the penalty and demanded payment on June 5, 2014, until June 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 110 million won, which is the balance remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 312 million (= KRW 50 million, KRW 97 million, KRW 120 million, KRW 45 million) paid to the plaintiff as the penalty amount of KRW 422 million reduced to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff delayed the supply of the instant gold bullion, and that there was any additional defect in the “MBR SDR SDR L/H” among the instant gold penalty, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request. However, the statement of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 alone is the fact that the Defendant asserted.

arrow