beta
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.03.24 2015가단11641

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,820,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from March 5, 2014 to June 1, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs wholesale and retail business, such as chemical medicine, with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who runs wholesale and retail business, such as salt, with the trade name of D.

On February 18, 2014, C Co., Ltd., the representative director of which is the Plaintiff, according to the Defendant’s order, supplied the Defendant with 100 tons of Piumium 100 tons (hereinafter “the primary supply”), and received 15,950,000 won (including 145,000 won per ton, and value added tax) from the Defendant. (B) Thereafter, on March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff registered as an individual entrepreneur according to the Defendant’s additional order, determined the amount to the Defendant as KRW 50,820,00 per ton (including value added tax) and supplied 330 tons of Pium calium 330 tons per ton (hereinafter “the secondary supply”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 30,820,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 20,000,000 for Pium 50,820,000 according to the Plaintiff’s secondary supply, and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from March 5, 2014, the day following the execution date until June 1, 2015, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, from March 5, 2014, to June 1, 2015, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to September 30, 2015, to the day of full payment.

(The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay that is claimed in excess of 15% per annum for the period after October 1, 2015 due to the amendment of the statutory interest rate under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is dismissed).

As to this, the defendant supplied calcium, unlike that confirmed by the defendant at the time of ordering, which cannot be supplied to the government offices by hardening, and thereby, the defendant 18,400.