물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,294,490 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 14, 2014 to January 26, 2015, and the following.
1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) and the argument as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells medical devices and medical supplies, and the Defendant is a person who operates a C Hospital. The Plaintiff begins to supply the Defendant with the amount equivalent to KRW 77,145,560 (including value-added tax) from October 31, 2013 to December 31, 2013, and supply the medical devices, etc. totaling KRW 377,145,560 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant from October 20, 2013; the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the medical devices, etc. totaling KRW 377,145,560 (including value-added tax). < Amended by Act No. 1217, Dec. 27, 200; Act No. 12851, Dec. 27, 2012; Act No. 1250, Mar. 20, 5014>
4.11.30,000,000 won;
4. 30.50,000,000
7.31.30,000,000
8. A reimbursement of the total of KRW 347,851,070 on 30,000,000 on 29.30,000, and KRW 347,851,070 on 13.13.1 may be recognized that the unpaid balance remains 29,294,490.
Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 29,294,490 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 14, 2014 to January 26, 2015, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint from October 14, 2014, and 20% per annum under the Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion asserts that since the defendant's account from 2011 to 2013 deposited KRW 201,216,249 as the representative director of the plaintiff's account from the defendant's account to 2013, the goods price was fully paid
(1) The Plaintiff’s representative director’s claim for offset against damage claim arising from the Plaintiff’s illegal act D was withdrawn, and thus no judgment is separately made thereon). According to the above evidence, the Plaintiff issued and issued an electronic tax invoice on the medical device, etc. supplied to the Defendant, and arranged the repaid amount in the account book. The amount claimed by the Plaintiff is the price for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant after October 31, 2013, and barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s claim is the price for the goods supplied to the Defendant.