물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,123,989 and KRW 36,424,629 among the Plaintiff and its KRW 1,210,110 among the Plaintiff.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers), the plaintiff supplied the defendant with the goods equivalent to the total amount of KRW 86,509,511 (including value added tax) from March 28, 2018 to January 12, 2019, and issued an electronic tax invoice claiming the price. The plaintiff received KRW 50,054,882 in total from the defendant from May 15, 2018 to January 15, 2019; the plaintiff thereafter received KRW 50,054,882 from the defendant during the period from May 15, 2018 to January 15, 2019; the plaintiff requested the defendant to supply the goods equivalent to KRW 1,210,110 (including value added tax); and each of the electronic tax invoices issued to the defendant on March 30, 2019.
2. According to the above findings of determination, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 38,123,989 and KRW 36,454,629, whichever comes due, to the Plaintiff, for KRW 1,210,110, which comes due around February 28, 2019, as the Plaintiff seeks, for KRW 459,250, which comes due around March 30, 2019, and for KRW 459,250, which comes due from March 31, 2019 to January 17, 2020, which is the sentencing date of each of the instant cases, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum per annum from the day following the day when the Defendant becomes due until the day when he/she fully performs the obligation.
(A) The Defendant’s claim on September 30, 2018 for the payment of goods supplied to C from July 18, 2018 to September 29, 2018 is alleged to the effect that the Defendant is unrelated to the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not actively dispute, such as attending the date for pleading and holding oral pleadings, and does not dispute the receipt of a transaction certificate by a field officer in charge of C who is the other party to the transaction, and the electronic tax invoice is deemed to have received without objection. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim is rejected).