(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.02.12 2013가단78507 (1)

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) 부산지방법원 2015.02.12 2013가단78507 (1)

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

The plaintiff presented the name of C, the head of the team team of the defendant company B, and asked the defendant company to supply the joint board to the construction site that the defendant company proceeds, and entered into an oral contract with the defendant company, and supplied the amount equivalent to KRW 65,802,770 as stated in the order of the defendant company, but did not receive KRW 46,353,930 among them, and thus, sought payment.

According to the statement Nos. 2 and 4 (including paper numbers), the fact that the plaintiff received an order from the name of the defendant company and supplied materials, such as Gohap, can be recognized.

However, if the entire purport of pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 5, the defendant company entered into an agreement with "D Company C" for the supply and construction of materials by awarding a contract to "D Company C" for inside and outside the apartment construction sites, including Osan Station, and for the supply and construction of materials provided by the defendant company. The plaintiff issued a tax invoice with "D Company C" as a person who is supplied with "D Company C" other than the defendant company, and the ordering person entered in the written order was the employees of "D Company C" as well as the employees of the defendant company, and the form of the order was different from the forms of the defendant company. In addition, the defendant company's "D Company C" can be acknowledged as having received the construction price in full from the defendant company and terminated the construction, but the defendant company did not agree to accept the materials, etc.

Comprehensively taking account of these facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of materials, such as the joint market, with the Defendant Company, not C, and it is difficult to believe that the testimony of C, which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, is in the position of bearing the obligation for the supply of goods,

In addition, only the statement of the evidence No. 8 and the testimony of the witness C, the defendant company belongs to C.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.12.16 2015가단15170

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.07.08 2019가단222613

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.04.22 2014가단24769

-제주지방법원 2015.09.15 2015가단853

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.08 2017가단5123426