logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.12.11 2018가단52902
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,063,920 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 1, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement on the purchase of goods with respect to C products, etc. sold by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Since then, the Plaintiff purchased milk products from the C Cooperatives (hereinafter “C head office”) and supplied them to the Defendant. The Plaintiff supplied milk products to plastic milk boxes.

When the plaintiff supplies milk, the opening price of the milk stuffs is 3,280 won.

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 5, purport of the whole pleadings.

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff supplied plastic milk boxes to the defendant, and the milk boxes were not included in the supply agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not return 13,739 of the milk boxes supplied by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for the amount of 45,063,920 won (=3,280 won x 13,739).

Since the agreement of this case concerns the return of the milk boxes, the defendant does not have the duty to return the milk boxes to the plaintiff.

In addition, the amount of unclaimed by the plaintiff cannot be recognized as there are no grounds.

Judgment

Considering that there is no dispute between the parties to the duty to return the voucher, or that the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 7 were video and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is determined that the Defendant agreed at the time of the instant agreement, at least, to return the voucher supplied by the Plaintiff as impliedly from the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff.

① The Defendant only paid the price of the milk product to the Plaintiff, and did not pay the price of the milk box separately.

② The Defendant returned the milk to the Plaintiff from November 201, 2016, which began to be supplied with milk from the Plaintiff, to around three months.

③ The Plaintiff

arrow