(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2014가단248312

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2014가단248312

집행판결

Text

1. As to the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board case No. 1411-0127 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an import agency agreement with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff on the import procedures for the manufactured cosmetics, and the Plaintiff entered into an import agency agreement with the Defendant to pay the import agency expenses.

B. The Plaintiff sought payment of damages against the Defendant on the ground that the import procedure had not run even after the lapse of the import period stipulated in Article 1411-0127 of the Arbitration Board. In addition, the Plaintiff filed an application for arbitration seeking payment of the amount to be paid from the Defendant as the loan interest interest accrued by the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserted that, although the import agency was conducted through the transfer of the goods, the transfer of the imported goods paid did not proceed with the import agency procedure on the wind of embezzlement.

(c) On October 31, 2014, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Tribunal rendered an arbitral award with the same content as the order of the judgment in the attached Form.

The Plaintiff submitted the original arbitral award in this case.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The enforcement of a judgment on the cause of a claim shall be made by the judgment of execution by the court, and the arbitral award made in the Republic of Korea shall be enforced unless there are grounds under Article 36(2) of the Arbitration Act, unless there are grounds under Article 36(2) of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above arbitral award should be permitted.

3. The defendant's assertion that the defendant paid the money received from the plaintiff to B, and the defendant embezzled that B failed to perform the contract with the plaintiff. However, even if the above circumstances are acknowledged, the execution of the arbitral award of this case cannot be denied, and the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

4. According to the conclusion, the claim of this case is accepted as reasonable.

참조조문

-중재법 제36조 제2항

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2016.02.03 2015가단2466

-수원지방법원평택지원 2014.11.27 2014가단10262

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2014가단190994

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.08.26 2015가단210711

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.16 2015가단28065