logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.08.03 2016가단11714
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 19,149,371 and Defendant B Co., Ltd. from May 28, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants’ price for materials that was not paid to the Plaintiff in relation to D Corporation and E Corporation is KRW 19,149,371 in total.

B. Around December 30, 2012, the Defendants entered into an agreement with creditors, including the Plaintiff, on payment of the said material price in lieu of the payment of the said material price, on payment in lieu of the ownership of the F Building 401 and 402 at Yangju-si.

C. The defendants are the defendants.

The plaintiff could not complete the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each real estate stated in the paragraph, and thereafter each real estate was awarded to the third party through the auction procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition]: Facts that there is no dispute or no clear dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff 19,149,371 won of the materials payment and damages for delay, as damages for which the above payment agreement is impossible.

The Plaintiff arbitrarily claimed ① material price or ② damages for reasons of impossibility of implementing the payment agreement in lieu of the Plaintiff.

As long as this full bench recognized the Defendants’ liability pursuant to the above ②, the Defendants’ assertion on the completion of extinctive prescription of the material price claim among the Defendants’ assertion is a defense against the above 1, and thus, the Defendants cannot be separately determined on April 20, 2017.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the obligation to pay the unpaid material price was extinguished, since they agreed with the Plaintiff as a substitute payment.

However, in payment in kind, the payment in kind shall be deemed to have become an accord and satisfaction only when the original benefit and the type of different benefit are effective and, in case where other benefit require a registration or enrollment, the registration or enrollment thereof shall be completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Da369, Jun. 7, 197).

arrow