물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,661,635 as well as 6% per annum from December 1, 2015 to April 19, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
1. The fact of recognition that the Plaintiff supplied goods ( films) to the Defendant who runs the wholesale and retail business, etc. in the name of “B” and caused KRW 37,161,635 of the goods price claim by November 30, 2015; the Defendant’s KRW 500,000 on January 11, 2016; the same year
2.2. 1 million won, and the same year;
3.4. 3 million won has been repaid over three occasions, including a total of 5.5 million won, and thereafter, the fact that the Defendant did not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the goods may be acknowledged by taking account of the absence of any dispute between the parties, or the purport of the entries and the entire arguments in Gap’s 1 to 3.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the balance of KRW 31,661,635 of the goods price and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from December 1, 2015 to April 19, 2016, the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable since the defendant notified the plaintiff's business person of the defective goods to deduct the amount equivalent to the value of the defective goods from the price of the goods because the defective goods occurred among the goods supplied by the plaintiff. However, as alleged by the defendant, there is no evidence to prove that the defective goods supplied by the plaintiff were caused to the defendant
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.