logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2020.05.19 2019가단871
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 62,406,50 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 1, 2018 to March 6, 2019.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in Evidence A Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the same year from the above date, when the Plaintiff supplied the Go-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

6. From July 1, 2018 to March 6, 2019 when a duplicate of the complaint in this case was served on the Defendant, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff supplied the order of class 72,406,500 won to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, from the following day to the date of payment of the remainder of the goods price of KRW 62,406,500, and from July 1, 2018 to the date following the agreed payment date, the copy of the complaint in this case was served on the Defendant (the statutory interest rate prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall apply from the day after the complaint seeking the performance of the monetary obligation was served on the debtor), and from the next day to the date of payment to the day of full payment.

2. As to this, the defendant alleged that he suffered loss of approximately KRW 122,341,928 on the wind that he was supplied by the plaintiff due to defects in the top-down order, but in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the defendant cannot accept the defendant's above assertion since it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the defendant alone proves that the plaintiff was defective in the top-down order of the second-class horse supplied by the plaintiff, and there is no problem in the top-class order of the second-class horse supplied by the plaintiff until the plaintiff files the lawsuit in this case.

3. Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow