logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2016.03.25 2015가단5487
매매대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that since around 2014, the plaintiff supplied pigs to the defendant through the broker B, the defendant's failure to pay the price to the defendant was notified of the suspension of transaction to the defendant, and the defendant directly entered into a swine supply contract with the defendant around February 3, 2015, and supplied pigs worth KRW 346,964,796 to the defendant from around that time until March 10, 2015, and the defendant was not paid KRW 317,025,556 out of that time. Thus, the defendant's failure to pay the price to the plaintiff KRW 29,939,240 should be paid to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff entered into a supply contract with B, and the defendant entered into a contract with B to process money and paid money to B in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because there is no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

B. The fact that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 11,695,556 on April 13, 2015 and April 18, 2015 does not conflict between the parties.

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8, the remainder, excluding the above KRW 11,695,556, out of the total sales proceeds of KRW 317,025,556 when the plaintiff was paid out of KRW 346,964,796, and the total sales proceeds of KRW 11,65,556, was deposited in the plaintiff's account under the third name, and in light of Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 7, the plaintiff sent facsimile to the defendant on April 3, 2015, and "the plaintiff sent facsimile to the defendant on the basis of two Sections, and later, transferred money directly to the plaintiff, and the defendant notified his account number to the plaintiff on December 10, 2014, under the name of "E" or "E".

arrow