(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.06.02 2015나16031

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) 대구지방법원 2016.06.02 2015나16031

제작대금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures food machinery and repairs business in the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who operates business in the trade name of “D.”

B. On February 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a mechanical manufacturing contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”) to make and install the cooling-conditioner and emitting-emitting equipment, etc. (hereinafter “instant machinery”) in the Bosung Fack’s bread factory by August 2014, 2014.

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff totaling KRW 43 million between March 31, 2014 and June 6, 2014 during the manufacturing period of the instant machinery.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the following selective arguments.

1) As the Plaintiff supplied the instant machinery to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the manufacturing cost of KRW 35 million unpaid under the instant contract (the contractual amount of KRW 87 million - the fixed payment of KRW 43 million - the fixed amount of KRW 9 million deducted from the expenses for additional materials) and delay damages. (2) The Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid manufacturing cost of KRW 44 million under the instant contract, subtracting KRW 9 million from the unpaid manufacturing cost of KRW 35 million, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said agreed amount.

B. The so-called production supply contract under which one of the parties to the contract of this case agrees to supply goods made by using his own materials according to the other party’s order and the other party agrees to pay the price for the manufacture. The so-called production supply contract of this case has the nature of the contract for the manufacture and the nature of the transaction and the nature of the contract as a substitute in terms of the sale and supply. Thus, the applicable law is a contract.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.01.14 2014가합31462

-청주지방법원 2017.12.14 2017가단513

-수원지방법원 2018.02.01 2017나3564

-부산고등법원(창원) 2019.08.22 2018나13632 (1)

-수원지방법원 2020.01.30 2018나6508