logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.08.10 2015가단46185
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,576,850 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from July 29, 2015 to August 10, 2017.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the Ansan business wholesale business in the trade name called “B (former trade name before the alteration)”. 2) The Plaintiff supplied the Ansan business to the Defendant from May 16, 2014 to July 28, 2015. The supply price of the Ansan business not including the value-added tax is the total of KRW 172,393,760.

3) The Defendant paid KRW 57,227,720 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff voluntarily acknowledges the fact that KRW 63,677,815, such as sirens purchased from the Defendant, should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of goods against the Defendant. However, according to the above fact-finding, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of goods KRW 51,48,225 (= KRW 172,393,760), - KRW 57,227,720 - KRW 63,67,815, and delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As the Defendant requested that the Plaintiff process 70,928 of the scrapped franchise value deducted, the Plaintiff’s disposal of 8,749,425 won of the 8,725 won of the 8,749,425 won of the 8,725 won of the 8,745 won of the 8,749,425 won of the 8,745 won of the 8,749,425 of the 2016, the Defendant’s assertion that the 8,749,425 won of the discarded siren should

B. Mutual aid 1) Defendant’s assertion and judgment thereon: Maz 3,62,200 won returned on January 27, 2015, and Maz 20,49,750 won returned on April 13, 2015: The fact that there is a defect in the Maz (see, e.g., “B returned case disposal” and the 5th pleading protocol in the documents attached to the Defendant’s preparatory documents on January 20, 2016). Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the value of the Maz should be deducted from the goods price, is with merit. The Maz 9,570,000 won returned on February 24, 2015: the Ma is recognized as having a defect, but the Plaintiff claims the value of the goods of the Ma, and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to the deduction of the price of the goods.

arrow