logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.19 2018나77854
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. In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 1 and No. 4 regarding the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods, such as C fishing land, etc. by September 2017, and the amount of the goods payable KRW 3,407,350 remains as of October 17, 201 of the same year, which is the final repayment date of the Defendant.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 3,407,350 won and the damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from October 18, 2017 to December 29, 2017, which is the service date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant could not respond to the claim of this case because he did not notify the defendant of the price of goods for several years and did an unfair trade act that supplies goods at a higher price than 10% than other sales agencies, thereby causing considerable damage to the defendant. However, the plaintiff is obligated to notify the defendant, who is a sales agency, of the price of

In addition, there is no evidence to deem that there is a difference in the supply price of the plaintiff for each sales agency, as alleged by the defendant, that "the plaintiff establishes a supply price and supplies it to the defendant. The supply price can be changed according to the plaintiff's circumstances, and the plaintiff only provides that the defendant shall be notified separately at that time) the plaintiff is obligated to supply all sales agencies at the same price, without considering the sales policy of the plaintiff, the opposite contractual party, and the market situation, or that the trust was formed in the market.

arrow