(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.25 2017나1476 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2017.10.25 2017나1476

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. From April 1, 2015 to April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased a dog of 600,000 (hereinafter “instant product”) from Taesung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SAE”) and supplied it to the Defendant by calculating it as 20 won per unit.

The price of the goods of this case is KRW 7,879,718 (including value-added tax) if the amount returned due to defects, expenses for the disposal of defects, etc. is deducted, and the defendant is obligated to pay the price of the goods of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant did not receive the instant goods from the Plaintiff, but was supplied with the Defendant’s Intervenor, and thereafter, paid the full amount of the instant goods to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) upon the Defendant’s request by the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’

2. First of all, the party who supplied the instant goods to the Defendant is the Plaintiff or the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 10, the defendant prepared a statement of transaction with the purport that he supplied the goods of this case to the plaintiff from April 1, 2015 to April 14, 2015, and signed by the defendant intervenor in the column for acceptance of the above statement of transaction. In relation to the transaction of the goods of this case, the plaintiff first issued the sales tax invoice to the defendant. The defendant's employee D sent e-mail to the defendant in relation to the defective treatment of the goods of this case to the defendant on May 7, 2015, and the defendant stated that "the defendant tried to adjust the defective cost considering the relation with the plaintiff, but it was excessively returned." The defendant sent e-mail to the defendant's employees E of Thai on the same day along with the above e-mail treatment issue with the defendant's above e-mail processing issue. In the process, the defendant's "B company" is its employee E. 2015.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.10 2018나65394

-수원지방법원 2019.01.24 2018나61680

-수원지방법원 2020.11.26 2019나81599

-부산지방법원 2017.11.23 2017나46653

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가단5122703