logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.03.24 2016가단230489
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 83,545,342 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 26, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures and supplies machinery tools, etc. in the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person who manufactures semiconductor parts, etc. in the trade name of “D”.

B. From March 27, 2016 to June 25, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with tools that make mobile phone cases.

C. The current balance of the above commodity price is KRW 83,545,342.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the goods price of KRW 83,545,342 and delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The part concerning the claim for deduction of KRW 13,08,00 for the value of the inventory goods at the time when the plaintiff supplied the goods. The defendant agreed to recover the inventory of KRW 13,08,00 when the plaintiff supplied the goods. Since the plaintiff refused to recover the inventory of KRW 13,08,00 for the defendant, the value of the inventory goods should be deducted from the claim amount. The defendant asserts that the above inventory value should be deducted from the claim amount. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the Eul evidence No. 1, which corresponds to the fact that the plaintiff agreed to recover the inventory of the goods at the time of supplying the goods to the defendant, is merely a content certificate sent by the defendant after the lawsuit of this case was instituted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's argument, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit, and the defendant unilaterally asserted that the plaintiff's sales of the goods should be excluded from the price of the goods at the time of the plaintiff's unilaterally sending the goods to another person.

The defendant's assertion.

arrow