logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2020.10.28 2019가단6735
물품대금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 58,815,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from October 25, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. On May 4, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of payment stating that “(i) in the event that the improvement project for salt farms by Defendant side is not selected as a project subsidized by the Government, the Defendant shall pay KRW 147,039,000 to the Plaintiff not later than December 31, 2018, for goods for natural pools for salt farm floor size 2,228 square meters supplied by the Plaintiff, provided by the Plaintiff on March 2017, and ② in the event that the Plaintiff is selected as a project subsidized by the Government, the Defendant shall pay KRW 147,039,00 to the Plaintiff only (such as its own charges) with the remainder of the money (hereinafter referred to as “instant payment note”).

Although the Defendant’s improvement project for salt farms on the part of the product price was selected as a project eligible for subsidies, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the price of the goods on the instant payment sheet, such as government subsidies and self-payment excluding them.

Accordingly, from May 2018, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the amount of goods unpaid by content-certified mail.

Upon filing the instant lawsuit, the Defendant paid KRW 88,224,00 to the Plaintiff on October 24, 2019.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (if there is a serial number, including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the fact that the judgment on the ground of claim for the suspension of the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 58,815,000 won (=147,039,000 won - 88,224,000 won) out of the price of the goods under “the letter of payment rejection of this case” and the delay damages therefor.

The main point of the defendant's argument is that the actual beneficiary who received floor materials from the plaintiff is "C religious organization", which is the owner of the salt farm, and the goods supply contract and the payment note are made by the contract party with the defendant who has been residing in the Shinan-gun in order to receive government subsidies in the improvement project for the salt farm.

arrow