beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.11 2020가합525611

물품대금

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne individually by each person.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 8, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the “mail” product equivalent to KRW 343,772,440, and the price for the goods was paid on September 27, 2018, when the price for the goods was 50 days from the date of delivery.

B. On October 23, 2020, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 343,772,440 as well as KRW 6% per annum from September 28, 2018, after the maturity date, to February 28, 2020, the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and KRW 56,130,714 per annum from the following day to October 23, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 5 (including branch numbers), the whole purport of pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 343,772,440 (hereinafter “price of the instant goods”) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, did not pay the price for the goods at the due date, deeming that the obligation was realized based on the occupational breach of trust by the Defendant’s employee. Since the Defendant fully repaid the price for the goods of this case and interest in arrears after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’

3. Determination

A. Although the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for the payment of the price of goods and the damages for delay thereof, the Defendant paid all the price of the goods and the damages for delay after the filing of the instant lawsuit as seen earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case on a different premise is without merit.

B. On the other hand, the Defendant paid the price of the instant goods to the Plaintiff only after the instant lawsuit was filed, taking into account the fact that C was actually charged with occupational breach of trust, etc., and there were circumstances to suspect that the instant goods had been also committed as a occupational breach of trust by C, Article 99 and Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.