A. The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of manufacturing, selling, manufacturing, selling, installing and selling a kitchen house, etc., and the Defendant is an individual who runs a household production business, etc. with B’s trade name.

B. On February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a 31,339,000 won amounting to KRW 31,39,00 (hereinafter “instant household”) for the same year.

3. 11. The Defendant received 20,000,000 won out of the amount of the goods.

C. In addition, on April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a new storage place equivalent to KRW 26,562,250 (hereinafter “new storage place”), and the same year.

6. 16. The Defendant received 5,000,000 won out of the amount of the goods.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 32,901,250 won (=31,39,00 won 26,562,250 won) unpaid out of the total amount of 31,901,250 won (=57,901,250 won - (20,000 won - 5,000,000 won))) and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 15, 2014 to October 7, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from April 15, 2014 to October 7, 2015, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

(Plaintiff claimed damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum for the period from the day after the duplicate of the instant complaint was served to the day of complete payment. However, the statutory interest rate provisions of the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings were amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015 to 15% per annum, and were enforced from October 1, 2015, and therefore, the part exceeding the above scope of recognition is without merit).

The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is not paid to the plaintiff.