(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.05.31 2017가합55483

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) 창원지방법원 2018.05.31 2017가합55483

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 13, 2012, a contract was entered into between the Defendant and the original stock company that manufactures and sells internal combustion engines parts, machinery equipment, etc. (hereinafter “original date”) under which the Defendant entered into a contract with KRW 653,400,000 (hereinafter “instant first contract”) to supply three high fuel RPF type equipment (hereinafter “instant plastic machine”) with KRW 346,50,000 (hereinafter “instant scrap metal”). The agreement includes the content that the Defendant may request re-inspection within seven days after the implementation of the instant contract, and the Plaintiff may request re-inspection and pay the remainder within ten days after the date of completion of the inspection.

B. On July 30, 2012, pursuant to the instant contract, KRW 604,340,000 out of the total amount of KRW 99,90,900,000, the first and second contracts of this case were delivered to the Defendant on or around August 30, 2012. The Defendant paid KRW 604,340,000 out of the total amount of KRW 1,2 contracts of this case to the Plaintiff.

C. On September 10, 2015, the original date was decided by the Changwon District Court 2015 Ma1050, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the custodian of the original date of the rehabilitation debtor on November 30, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” without distinguishing between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff). 【Recognition fact-finding fact-finding absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. In regard to the claim of the parties that the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 395,560,00 for the remaining amount under the contract Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, the defendant asserts that the defendant could not use the sex flag of this case and the crushing machine of this case for its original purpose due to defects, and that the remaining payment obligations under the contract Nos. 1 and 2 of this case were extinguished by the completion of the extinctive prescription.

3. Determination

(a) Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers).

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2013.03.14 2012고단1900

-수원지방법원 2013.07.18 2013노1437

-대전지방법원 2017.12.20 2016가합100007

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.26 2018가단49803

-서울동부지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단112137