물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,478,852 as well as 6% per annum from November 11, 2015 to October 6, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, and part of Gap evidence 1, the facts that the plaintiff supplied 14,67,463 won to the defendant (the trade name of February 26, 2016 changed from Eul Co., Ltd. to Eul Co., Ltd.) (the trade name of February 26, 2016) who had been located in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun to the defendant (the name of February 26, 2016 changed from Eul Co., Ltd.) during the construction site of Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, and the defendant paid 82,198,611 won out of the price of the above ready-mixed, and the plaintiff and the defendant did not pay 32,478,852 won out of the due date of the following month, and there seems to be insufficient to acknowledge the above facts.
2. Determination
A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff sought payment of the unpaid amount of KRW 32,763,092 and damages for delay from November 1, 2015, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 32,478,852, and the Defendant’s claim for delay damages within the scope of recognition, on October 11, 2015, following the 10th day of the following month from the due date of payment as agreed on October 28, 2015, where it is reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform the instant case from November 11, 2015 to the date of the instant judgment, until October 6, 2016, which is the date of the instant judgment, by 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. As of September 1, 2015, the defendant asserts that, since the representative director of the defendant took over all debts of the defendant as of September 1, 2015, all officers of the defendant take the responsibility, the defendant has no obligation to pay the amount of ready-mixed to the plaintiff.
On September 1, 2015, as alleged by the defendant, all executive officers of the defendant are responsible.