logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.11.27 2019나50069
물품대금
Text

1.The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the dismissed part of the lawsuit, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, as the representative of the “C”, supplied the Defendant with daily necessities, etc. from around July 10, 2015 to the Defendant operating the “DE”, etc. The Plaintiff, among the goods supplied until May 17, 2017, failed to receive “2,693,450 won of the outstanding amount of the E E EE EEterate Marate 2,730,02 won,” “Fmarate 2,774,540 won of the outstanding amount of the DM”, and “Dma Marate 1,774,540 won of the outstanding amount,” was sent to the Defendant’s husband G (E Emarate Mad Mad Ma”), and the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff goods equivalent to KRW 1,586,100 of the total amount on November 19, 2018, or recognized the purport of the entire pleadings by integrating evidence No. 1, No. 1, and evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1.

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the aforementioned returned goods are goods with no property value after the expiration of the distribution period, and thus, the amount of return cannot be deducted from the attempted amount. However, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted unless there is specific assertion or proof as to the property value or defects at the present of the returned goods received by the Plaintiff.

In addition, there is also a lack of evidence to prove that the defendant is responsible for paying the overdue interest of the proceeds claimed by the plaintiff and the proceeds of the Ematept mother's attempted payment.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,918,462 (i.e., the amount of KRW 1,774,540 (i.e., the amount of KRW 2,730,02 - the amount of return KRW 1,586,100).

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified only within the scope of the above recognition, and the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, and the defendant's appeal is partially accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as ordered.

arrow