logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.23 2015나33377
물품대금
Text

1. To order payment in excess of the amount ordered under paragraph (2) among the parts concerning counterclaims of a judgment of the court of first instance;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the malicious gold-making business, and the Defendant is a person who runs the precious metal retail business in the name of “B”.

The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to process gold boxes (at least 30 boxes per set) to be used by the Defendant in the book boxes (North Korea), which was produced by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff performed gold operations with the Defendant 30,613 sets from November 201 to April 2014.

B. The Plaintiff regularly issued a tax invoice and demanded the Defendant to pay the price according to the amount claimed by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 32,059,255 (including value-added tax) for the gold business during the period from March 20, 2014 to April 30, 2014, and the Defendant refused payment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the purport of the whole argument

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion (i.e., the Defendant initially agreed upon the unit price of 20,000 won per set (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), but instead, by deceiving the Defendant and applying 22,800 won per set. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should return KRW 62,288,785, as unjust enrichment, which offsets the Defendant’s deferred payment from the amount of 32,059,255 won by the amount of 62,28,785 won, as unjust enrichment on May 2014, when the Defendant did not properly grasp the amount of the set set aside in the tax invoice or the statement of transactions.

D. On December 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of KRW 22,800 in the unit price per sets, which has been reduced by the Plaintiff since December 2010, and the Defendant did not raise an objection for more than three years, and thereafter, raised an objection to the unit price that should have been raised on May 2014.

arrow