(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.01.18 2017나3424 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.01.18 2017나3424

공사대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff operates a container manufacturer with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant operates a container manufacturer with the trade name of “D” and a container manufacturer.

B. On April 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to manufacture and deliver containers with respect to the construction of a new container dormitory subcontracted by Japanese companies E (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. The Plaintiff manufactured containers under the instant contract and completed the delivery thereof to the Defendant, and received a total of KRW 114,324,000 from the Defendant from April 21, 2015 to September 17, 2015.

According to the settlement results of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the unpaid amount remaining as of the date of the closing of the instant argument is KRW 94,348,00.

After the Defendant supplied the containers produced by the Plaintiff to E, there were defects such as melting and funging in the upper part and inside of the said container.

E, around February 13, 2016, notified the Defendant of the occurrence of the defect and subsequently proceeds from the repair of the defect in Japan, and the cost of the repair of the defect is the amount equivalent to KRW 258,108,686.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 94,348,00,000, which is the unpaid amount of the price of supplied goods under the instant contract, and to pay the Plaintiff 15% interest per annum from October 29, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not receive the price of goods from E, the ordering agent, due to the defect in containers supplied by the Plaintiff, and rather, the Defendant did not receive the price of goods.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2020.12.08 2020나10190

-부산지방법원 2019.06.12 2018가합49495

-대구지방법원 2019.09.25 2019나164

-부산지방법원 2016.06.01 2015나8848

-수원지방법원 2018.07.05 2017가단508877