logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.11.24 2014가단63475
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, and 5-1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 6-1, and 6-2.

On October 2013, 2013, Gaing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gaing”) entered into a supply contract with the same mining comprehensive building company (hereinafter “Dong Mine comprehensive building”) on the unit generation and public unit of the construction site of the doju B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) constructed with the same mining comprehensive building site.

B. On October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied LED rectangular 22W 840 feet at the construction site of the instant apartment parking lot at the site of the instant apartment on November 8, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lamps”).

C. Since then, around November 13, 2013, the Defendant, who was engaged in the manufacturing of lighting fixtures with the trade name “C” and “C” due to bankruptcy, entered into a supply contract with the unit household and the public department of the instant apartment construction site (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

At present, the instant apartment underground parking lot is installed with the lamps of this case supplied by the Plaintiff.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the parties’ assertion is that the Defendant comprehensively assumed the obligations related to the supply of the light equipment to the construction site of the previous Gaving with the instant apartment site when concluding the supply contract of the same light comprehensive building and the instant supply contract, and thereafter, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,328,000 and the damages for delay thereof.

As to this, the defendant did not agree to take over the discharge price obligation of this case at the time of entering into the delivery contract of this case.

arrow