물품대금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,395,805 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 7, 2019 to the date of complete payment.
1. The determination of the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant, a company operating air ventilation equipment business, etc. from around 2014 to February 27, 2017, with goods such as air ventilation, etc., and that the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant as of February 27, 2017, with the goods supplied to the Defendant as of February 27, 2017, without dispute between the parties, or with the overall purport of pleadings as set forth in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.
According to the above, the defendant is obligated to pay 36,395,805 won for unpaid goods and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from March 7, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.
2. The defendant asserts that even if he/she recognizes the payment of the price for the goods against the plaintiff, the amount of KRW 15,080,114 in total (==10,729,900 on July 8, 2016 + + KRW 3,062,50 on August 8, 2016 + + KRW 1,134,857 on November 1, 2016 + KRW 857 on November 1, 2016 + KRW 152,857 on January 9, 2017) was repaid.
However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, each of the above approval details by the defendant appears to be only a specification of transactions in which the plaintiff received the price immediately while supplying the goods upon the defendant's request at risk that transaction will be suspended due to cumulative amounts of attempted approval.
Therefore, the above settlement amount pointed out by the defendant is a separate transaction that is not included in the claim amount of this case, for which the goods have been supplied first in the continuous transaction relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it is difficult to view that the defendant paid part of the claim amount of this case.
In addition, the defendant is fully able to prove the fact of his performance.