logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.27 2014나46096
유류대금
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

Since the Plaintiff supplied oil equivalent to KRW 3,001,386 to the Defendant-owned vehicle at the 2nd gas station, which is the Plaintiff’s branch from June 2012 to July 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above oil price of KRW 3,001,386 and the delay compensation therefor. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the other party who entered into a oil supply contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “B”) was not the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the said oil price to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff supplied oil to the motor vehicle owned by the defendant at the tax station 2, which is the branch of the plaintiff from June 2012 to July 2012. The plaintiff was issued an electronic tax invoice which is 2,148,824 on June 30, 2012, and an electronic tax invoice which is 852,562 on July 31, 2012, which is 852,562, respectively, although it is acknowledged that the plaintiff was supplied to the defendant, considering the overall purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 1 to 18 (including the serial number), the plaintiff and Eul were supplied to the defendant with the oil by transporting aggregate and sand as dump trucks, and the plaintiff was supplied with the oil from the plaintiff's purchase and repair order, and the plaintiff was supplied with the oil from the plaintiff's purchase and repair order after receiving the oil supply order.

arrow