(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.22 2016나5519 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2016.09.22 2016나5519

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates “D” in Si-Gyeong-si and sells agricultural chemicals and farming materials, and the Defendant is a person who sets up a Oral farmer.

B. From March 4, 2015 to June 8, 2015, the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s pesticide equivalent to KRW 1,460,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, entry of Eul evidence No. 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) from March 4, 2015 to June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied a total of KRW 1,460,00 to the Defendant; (b) however, the Defendant paid KRW 618,320 as the pesticide price; and (c) the remainder of the pesticide price ( KRW 1,460,000 - KRW 618,320) is not paid.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 841,680 won and damages for delay payable to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion is that the defendant entered into a pesticide supply contract with the E or the leader of a crop who has provided guidance related to the farming of the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay the pesticide price to E or F, not the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence No. 1, testimony of witness F of the first instance trial, and the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) F made a statement to the effect that "self-reliance is merely a mere introduction to the plaintiff and the defendant; (ii) it was provided with pesticides from the plaintiff on the job in which the plaintiff and the defendant are located; and (iii) it was explained that the plaintiff and the plaintiff et al. accepted all of them; and (iv) the defendant paid KRW 90,000 directly to the plaintiff on March 11, 2015, etc., it is deemed that a pesticide supply contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay the pesticide price provided by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant, 'E', and 'E'.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2015.06.18 2015가단1661

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.01.15 2018가단4273

-청주지방법원 2018.12.06 2018나8072

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.07.15 2014가단11425

-대구지방법원 2020.02.07 2019나423