(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.26 2018나975 | 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) 부산지방법원 2018.10.26 2018나975

물품대금

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. As to the judgment of the court of first instance that was rendered on December 13, 2012 by the Defendant, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on January 30, 2018. In full view of the records and the purport of the entire pleadings in the instant case, the first instance court proceeded with the litigation by means of service by public notice from the delivery of a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, and the Defendant was deemed to have known of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance and the original copy of the judgment were served by public notice on January 23, 2018. Thus, the instant appeal for subsequent completion filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.

2. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff sold computers and peripheral devices from April 23, 201 to the same year

6. By December 28, 200, the computer repair business was supplied to B (hereinafter “B”) with goods, such as computer parts, and the Plaintiff urged payment of KRW 49,498,200 (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”) out of the price of the instant goods, and the Defendant, the actual operator of B, prepared and delivered a letter to the Plaintiff that “B would instead pay the price of the instant goods if the price of the instant goods is not paid,” and the Defendant, the actual operator of B, prepared and delivered the letter to the Plaintiff that “B would instead pay the price of the instant goods” (hereinafter “each letter of this case”). Accordingly, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the price of the instant goods and the damages for delay.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that since he only prepared the letter of this case according to the plaintiff's demand that he was a temporary employee of B, the promise to pay according to the letter of this case is null and void as a bad declaration of intention, and the unpaid amount of goods is only KRW 13 million.

3. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff from April 23, 2011, which are acknowledged as having comprehensively taken account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5.

6. Notwithstanding the supply of computer parts equivalent to the sum of KRW 163,844,700 in B until December 28, 49, out of the price of the goods.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.14 2017나32996

-서울남부지방법원 2016.03.31 2015가합2936

-서울서부지방법원 2019.07.04 2018가단10923

-청주지방법원 2015.10.06 2014나10237

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.24 2015나18304