물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,659,920 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from April 16, 2014 to March 5, 2015, and the following.
The basic fact is that the plaintiff is a company that manufactures a paint and engages in wholesale and retail business, and the defendant is an individual who engages in wholesale and retail business with the trade name of the company B.
On December 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a total sales contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant total sales contract”) and supplied goods.
On November 19, 2013, the defendant taken office as an intra-company director of the sales board of this case and worked as an intra-company director.
The defendant opened a company B on April 25, 2013, and entered into a goods supply contract with the plaintiff at that time, and has been supplied with goods.
In April 2013, the Plaintiff continued to engage in the instant sales market and goods transaction with the Plaintiff (the head of Daejeon District Tax Office dealt with the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s ex officio closure on March 6, 2014). However, even thereafter, the Plaintiff continued to engage in the instant sales market and goods transaction with the Plaintiff (the Defendant).
After December 19, 2013, the executives and employees of the Plaintiff continued to engage in the transaction by establishing more BableC Co., Ltd.
(The data submitted by the Plaintiff alone does not confirm whether the said company was established accurately or in some circumstances). The Defendant entered into a contract for goods supply with more Bable C Co., Ltd. and was supplied with the goods.
Around January 22, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the Plaintiff’s total sales.
[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the fact-finding with respect to the Daejeon District Tax Office of this Court, the plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion as to the ground for claim of the whole pleadings was supplied to the defendant from January 17, 2013 to April 15, 2014, and did not receive a total of KRW 28,659,920.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the price for the goods that was not paid to the plaintiff.
In fact, the transaction amount, accounts receivable, etc. calculated on the basis of electronic tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff for supplying the total sales of this case and the Defendant are as follows.
The monthly transaction amount (including return) shall be the monthly transaction amount.