beta
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2014.07.17 2013가단44775

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 9,500,000 to the Plaintiff at the rate of 20% per annum from June 5, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the entries in the evidence No. 3 (Evidence No. 6, No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on January 3, 2013, under which the Plaintiff would sell an air conditioners (used goods), advanced air conditioners (used goods), metal scrapers, and automatic crowdfunding (hereinafter referred to as “instant machinery”) for KRW 29,50,000 for the price, and the Plaintiff would pay the balance of KRW 24,50,000 for the purchase price under the said contract by May 10, 2013.

In addition, the fact that the Plaintiff delivered the instant machinery to the Defendant on January 17, 2013 that the Defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2013, and KRW 5,000,000 on May 2, 2013, and KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on May 14, 2013, there is no dispute between the parties.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 9,500,000 unpaid out of the remainder under the above contract and 20% interest per annum from June 5, 2013 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

B. As to this, the Defendant did not pay the balance by May 10, 2013, as stated in the above contract, and the Defendant made an oral agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay the balance after obtaining a certification of piracy (HCCP, Hazard Analys and Crums). The Defendant received the certification of humbrow on June 13, 2013, and the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of the remainder, as the Plaintiff rejected the request for payment of the remainder of this case, even though the Defendant was aware of the defective machinery of this case and demanded repair on May 13, 2013.

In addition, even upon examining all the evidence submitted by the Defendant, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have made a verbal agreement on the remaining payment date as “after the Defendant obtained the piracy certification” as stated in the above contract, contrary to “ May 10, 2013.”

(b).