logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2020.04.23 2019가단23246
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 58,745,557 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from August 6, 2019 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a business operator who runs the wholesale and retail business of non-ferrous metals with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a business operator who runs the precision processing business, etc. under the trade name of “D.” (2) The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with an amount equivalent to KRW 78,745,557 in total amount of Aluminium plate and each material from August 14, 2018 to February 25, 2019.

(Detailed description No. 2) With respect to this, the Defendant paid the amount of goods worth KRW 20 million in total three times from December 4, 2018 to February 28, 2019 to the Plaintiff from February 28, 2019. 【The ground for recognition】 the fact that there is no dispute, Party A’s 1 through 4 (if there is a serial number, each statement including each number, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of 58,745,557 won (=78,745,577 won-20 million won) payable to the plaintiff and delay damages therefrom.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 58,745,557 won and damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum from August 6, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day when a duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion is acknowledged that the defendant received the part equivalent to KRW 24,145,232 of the Aluminium and each of the materials supplied by the plaintiff (hereinafter "the product of this case"). However, the defendant asserts that E bears the duty to pay the price of goods, since E is actually aware of the goods actually supplied by the plaintiff, who is the plaintiff's seat, and such circumstances are well known to the plaintiff.

In this regard, E has submitted through the original plaintiff a factual confirmation (Evidence A 6) that “the price for the product in dispute of this case shall be paid to the plaintiff,” and the defendant, through changing his position, shall pay the price for the product in dispute of this case.

arrow