logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.07.07 2015가단19766
유류대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with oil equivalent to KRW 20,586,572, but did not receive the price, and thus, sought the payment of the said oil.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2, the Plaintiff, who operates a gas station with the trade name of “C”, provided the Defendant with oil equivalent to the total amount of KRW 20,586,572, as the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with light oil equivalent to KRW 8,448,948, and KRW 100,776, and ordinary gasoline equivalent to KRW 100,776, May 31, 2014, and KRW 200,586,572.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff entered into an oil supply contract with the Defendant, and instead, it is found that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the entire purport of each entry and pleading set forth in subparagraphs B through B is recognized as follows. In other words, the Plaintiff entered into an oil supply contract between Heung Construction Co., Ltd. and supplied oil to the Defendant, who is the contractor for Heung Construction Co., Ltd. under the above contract, as above, and the Clean Limit Co., Ltd., which is the contractor for He Heung Construction Co., Ltd., directly pays the Plaintiff the oil price to Heung Construction Co., Ltd. and paid the remainder of the construction price

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow