logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원해남지원 2017.07.11 2016가단1967
물품대금
Text

1. Defendant A’s KRW 70,008,490 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 to July 11, 2017.

Reasons

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of the relevant case;

A. On January 201, 2013, the Plaintiff and Defendant A entered into a contract on the supply of stone (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff, who received aggregate of clothes, rocks, etc. in the forest and fields of Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, from KRW 13,00 per 1 cubic meter of clothes, KRW 95,000 per 1 cubic meter of breadth, and to supply stone to Defendant A, after delivering them to the bridge designated by Defendant A (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The Plaintiff supplied building stones to Defendant A from February 20, 2013 to June 30, 2013 under the instant contract.

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

2. Claim against the defendant A;

A. (1) From February 20, 2013 to June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied stone equivalent to the aggregate of KRW 551,552,200 as shown in the attached Table, as stated in the attached Table, to the extent that the Defendant A recognizes it, and there is no dispute between the parties thereto. (2) The Plaintiff supplied 91 percent of the total price, not KRW 88, March 18, 2013, beyond the scope recognized earlier, (2) supplied 59 percent of the total price, not KRW 52, but KRW 56, not KRW 52, as of May 30, 2013; and (3) supplied 59 percent of the total price, KRW 59 percent on June 9, 2013, KRW 59 percent on June 28, 2013, and KRW 40 on June 29, 2013 to the extent that it agreed upon the supply of stone.

As seen below, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff was supplied to Defendant A with stone exceeding the scope recognized earlier by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The supply details of Gap evidence Nos. 18-1 through 4 (each transport log) and Gap evidence Nos. 18-5 through 8 (each transport log) submitted by the plaintiff as evidence of the supply details of March 18, 2013 include only 89 units or 88 units of transport logs, and Gap evidence No. 46 units of transport logs are included.

arrow