logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.01.11 2016가단2895
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 92,335,516 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 6% per annum from August 26, 2015 to January 30, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in a forestry processing business of agricultural products, such as molds powder, and the Defendant is a company engaged in the trade business and the manufacturing and selling business of organic rice, etc.

B. In concluding a contract for the supply of export goods on June 23, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”), the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to manufacture goods to be exported by the Defendant and supply them to the Defendant, and export them. However, the Plaintiff orders at least 20 tons of goods in one month, and the Defendant bears all responsibility for the goods loaded, and the amount of the goods shall be at least 3,800 dollars per ton, and the amount of the goods shall be at least 3,800 dollars on the basis of USD 45 days of the date of loading in Busan.

C. On July 12, 2015, the Defendant loaded 20.54 tons of the red powder powder 20.54 tons (hereinafter “the instant red powder”) at the port of Busan by delivery from the Plaintiff, and the consignor from the carrier is “the Defendant and the consignee are companies located in the U.S.,” and “the Defendant and the consignee are companies located in the U.S.”

2) The bill of lading was issued to the State of California, California. 【No dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case with the defendant and supplied the foundation powder to the defendant according to the contract, the defendant is obligated to pay the price of the goods and damages for delay as stipulated in the contract.

On the other hand, the defendant prepared a contract for the supply of the molds (No. 1) with the plaintiff, but it was merely prepared in formality, and there was no conclusion of the contract of this case. However, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff arranged the non-party company to export the molds of this case to the non-party company, and that the consignor of the molds of this case becomes the defendant is merely the good delivery of transportation.

B. (1) The occurrence of the obligation to pay the price for the goods is set forth in Articles 2 through 4.

arrow