(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.02.22 2017나7880 | 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) 인천지방법원 2018.02.22 2017나7880

물품대금등반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is: (a) February 13, 2015; and (b) the same year.

3.9.9. The same year.

3. 25. 25. 25. The defendant asserts that he sold 1200 chemical parts to the defendant over three occasions, and sought payment of KRW 15 million as the price.

The defendant asserts that although the plaintiff's employee C has taken over the parts produced by the plaintiff, it does not enter into a sales contract at the time, but if the plaintiff passed the delivery examination of the government office, the defendant was decided to purchase them, and thus it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's request.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings, the part as set forth in the judgment Nos. 1 and 2 as to ① the part as set up by the Director of the Sales Center is not simply settled by adding transportation expenses to the purchase price, but rather deducting transportation expenses and a certain amount, the details of which are not known from the purchase price, and ② the part as set up by the Director of the Sales Center is set up on February 320, 2015; and

3. 9.356 (No. 356)

3. Although the number of 324 days in the first instance trial is 1,000, the Plaintiff claimed the quantity of supply from the third day in the first instance trial. ③ Unlike the 15,000 won in the Plaintiff’s director, the Plaintiff alleged in the preparatory document dated December 21, 2017 that the Plaintiff was 12,500 won. ④ The Plaintiff did not directly negotiate with the Defendant until the production and supply of the portion requested by the Defendant and transaction with the Defendant was completed, and C did not inform the Plaintiff of the terms and conditions agreed with the Defendant. ⑤ After the supply and the month, the portion was supplied, the Defendant explained that the supply contract of government offices was not made in the currency of the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Defendant promised to pay money at the time of completion of the supply by the Defendant is also stated in the written statement prepared by the Director of the Sales Center.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.08.16 2017노7468

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.01.12 2017고정564

-인천지방법원 2014.05.22 2013노3842

-의정부지방법원 2020.10.14 2019노2620

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.11 2017가합544995