장비대금
1. The defendant shall pay 30,131,500 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from May 21, 2020 to the day of complete payment.
1. The plaintiff is a company that operates equipment leasing business, and the defendant is a company that carries on an engineering work.
The Plaintiff leased crushing devices to the Defendant from April 2018 to May 2019 to D, E, and F.
Around September 16, 2019, the total equipment cost is KRW 56,280,000, and the defendant prepared a statement of prohibition of equipment substitution to the effect that the unpaid equipment cost is KRW 45,131,500 and the payment is made by April 30, 2020 to the plaintiff.
Until the time of filing a lawsuit on February 6, 2020, KRW 24,148,500 was paid, and KRW 2,00,000 was additionally paid on February 18, 2020 after filing a lawsuit, and the current amount of unpaid equipment is KRW 30,131,50.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the unpaid equipment cost of KRW 30,131,500 and delay damages.
[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The Defendant’s assertion argues to the effect that it is difficult or reasonable to believe the amount of equipment cost to be paid by the Defendant, such as the number of working days and the method of repayment, etc.
However, according to Gap 1-1-1-9 electronic tax invoices and Gap 3 business counterpart director, the total amount of equipment costs incurred by May 31, 2019 is 56,280,000, and according to Gap 3 business customer director, the amount repaid by September 16, 2019 by Gap 2 on the date of the non-discoveration of equipment costs was 11,148,500, and Gap 3 business customer director, the unpaid equipment costs (56,280,000 - 11,148,500 won) by September 16, 2019 are consistent with the unpaid amount of equipment costs in the non-discoveration of equipment costs, and the amount repaid by the plaintiff after deducting the amount repaid by the plaintiff, and the alteration of the purport of the claim is recognized by deducting the additional amount of KRW 2,00,000,000 from the amount repaid by the plaintiff.
Considering these facts comprehensively, Party A’s 2 Equipment Prohibition Statement and Party A’s 3 Customer Director are sufficiently reliable and cannot be trusted.
any other amount than the amount that the plaintiff received or deducted.