(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.12.15 2015가단12743

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.12.15 2015가단12743

기계대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the argument, on April 21, 2014, the plaintiff requested the production of Bobrerererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererereer to the defendant and supplied it, and paid 24 million won out of 30 million won of the machinery price. However, the plaintiff did not operate the machinery properly, and the plaintiff and the defendant agreed several times with the defendant. As a result, on March 12, 2015, the agreement execution letter was prepared and entered into with the plaintiff that the plaintiff recognized the lack of technology that the plaintiff would not use the machinery properly. The plaintiff was examined in the presence of the employee in charge of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff accepted it for 10 days and operated the test for 10 days, and if it was confirmed that there was no defect in the machinery products with the above machine for one month thereafter, the plaintiff shall be paid the money to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that the contract is terminated, and that there was no error in the mechanical performance according to the schedule set forth in the above letter of commitment, and that the contract is terminated, the plaintiff claims the return of KRW 24 million to the defendant.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant did not properly perform the matters set forth in the above arbit Nos. 2-1 through 17 by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the purport of the statement and the whole pleadings set forth in No. 10-3, the Defendant accepted machinery in accordance with the above arbit No. 10-3, and confirmed it to the Plaintiff by operating the machinery properly. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.09.19 2017가단214200

-인천지방법원 2018.04.27 2017가단27289

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.11.07 2018가단70926

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.07.23 2014가단11318

-서울북부지방법원 2016.07.15 2015가단18937