logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.29 2019가단5088367
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

A claim for the purchase-price of goods arising from a continuous contract for the supply of goods is that the extinctive prescription of each claim for the purchase-price of goods arising from an individual transaction exists, barring special circumstances, and it cannot be deemed that the extinctive prescription of each claim for the purchase-price of goods is calculated in a lump sum from the date of termination of the transaction, and the extinctive prescription of each claim for the purchase-price of goods cannot be calculated in a lump sum. In the absence of confirmation or confirmation of a claim for the purchase-price of goods between each individual transaction, the fact that the goods

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods is deemed to have occurred as a transaction until February 5, 2014, and even from March 25, 2015, it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 11, 2019 when three years have elapsed since March 25, 2015, and thus, the instant claim for the purchase price of goods was extinguished due to the lapse of the extinctive prescription period.

On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid part of the goods to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant approved the above goods payment obligation, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the Defendant, i.e., the Defendant has continuously demanded the settlement of the goods from August 8, 2013 to August 3, 2015 due to the defect that occurred in relation to the goods price claimed by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff arranged KRW 24,523,315 out of the KRW 83,290,796, which the Defendant demanded the settlement of the goods around August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff used the trade name that the Plaintiff was a stock company D until the time:

With the change of management, the management has been changed on 2016.

arrow