(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2017.08.10 2017가단1909

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) 광주지방법원순천지원 2017.08.10 2017가단1909

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 90,012,00 and the Defendants A with respect thereto from January 26, 2017; and Defendant B from January 26, 2017.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact 1) On June 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a transaction agreement with Defendant A (mutual name: C) on fertilizer products, such as the tetropha, supplied by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(2) On June 25, 2014, in order to secure the obligation for the purchase of goods under the instant agreement, Defendant B concluded the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with respect to one-fourths of KRW 100 million with respect to the maximum debt amount, KRW 100 million with respect to the portion of KRW 39,008 square meters of forest D, Gyeyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do, as well as KRW 39,008 square meters. (2) The Plaintiff supplied the Defendants with goods from April 10, 2014 to January 27, 2015, but the Plaintiff did not receive 9,0120,000 won with respect to

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence, purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 90,0120,000 per annum calculated on January 26, 2017 (Defendant A) or from March 23, 2017 (Defendant B) to the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint, to the day of full payment.

2. Defendant A’s assertion and determination that Defendant A refused the Plaintiff’s claim, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s defect in the goods supplied was discovered and subsequently returned to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant A rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any place to return the goods.

However, the Plaintiff suffered products of different specifications from the contractual terms to Defendant A.

Unless there is any evidence that there is any defect in the goods supplied by the plaintiff or the goods supplied by the plaintiff, the above assertion by the defendant A is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is accepted.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.04.19 2017나59535

-수원지방법원 2019.04.16 2018가단15556

-창원지방법원김해시법원 2020.05.14 2020가단15

-청주지방법원충주지원 2017.12.14 2017가단3638

-대구지방법원 2016.03.15 2015가단44110