물품대금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 478,374,444 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from July 8, 2019 to the day of complete payment.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures electric motors, power generators, etc., and the Defendant is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business for wind power machinery, etc. with the trade name “C”.
B. From May 20, 2013 to February 28, 2019, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with air conditioners and was not paid KRW 478,374,444 out of the price of goods.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 478,374,444, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from July 8, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day on which the Plaintiff served the application for the instant payment order, as requested by the Plaintiff, as the day when the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the goods.
(1) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum. However, the legal interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the “interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree” was partially revised as of May 21, 2019 and enforced from June 1, 2019, and the portion exceeding 12% per annum is without merit). 3. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion is without any evidence to the purport that the Plaintiff’s claim is unjustifiable since there was an agreement by the Plaintiff to provide the Defendant with a product amounting to KRW 50 million free of charge or suspend the payment until economic recovery.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
4. The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.