운임
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 62,438,420 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 9, 2017 to the date of complete payment.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a selective transport contract with the plaintiff on May 25, 2016, with the plaintiff's request, and the defendant shall pay the freight and other expenses to the plaintiff, and the contract period shall be from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017. The defendant shall settle freight and other expenses based on the cargo collected by the plaintiff by the last day of each month and claim against the defendant by the fifth day of the following month, and the tax invoice shall be issued in the name of "Seman Korea Korea Korea Korea Overseas Transit Corporation". The defendant confirmed the plaintiff's claim and entered into a selective transport contract (hereinafter "the transport contract of this case"), with the purport that the plaintiff shall pay freight and other expenses by the 15th day of the following month, from April 2016 to April 2017.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid fare of KRW 62,438,420 (=292,428,800 - 229,90,380) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 9, 2017 to the day of full payment, on the record that it is clear that the delivery day of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, until January 1, 2017, the carriage of door-to-door shipments by the Defendant was made by return and the Defendant failed to receive the returned goods, the freight cannot be paid for the pertinent door-to-door shipments. Thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to deliver the returned eight door-to-door shipments to the Defendant during the above period, although the Plaintiff itself acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff did not deliver the returned eight door-to-door shipments to the Defendant, it is not the eight goods.