물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,005,200 as well as annual 6% from January 1, 2019 to October 23, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
1. According to each of the Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number), the plaintiff, as an enterprise that manufactures and sells the steel line, engaged in the transaction of supplying the steel line between October 12, 2009 and December 31, 2018 with the defendant who operates C, and as of December 31, 2018, the defendant's unpaid goods amounting to 61,005,200 won as of December 31, 2018. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the unpaid goods amounting to 61,005,200 won and its final goods supply date, from January 1, 2019 to October 23, 2019 with the original copy of the payment order issued to the defendant, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act, and 1% per annum from the day following the day when the payment order was delivered to the defendant.
2. The defendant's assertion that the price cannot be paid because the plaintiff's defects exist in the steel line supplied by the plaintiff, but the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff had a defect or defect in excess of the part that the plaintiff had already acknowledged the defect through the exchange, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Furthermore, since the transaction of this case constitutes a commercial activity, if there is a defect that is not immediately discovered pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act, it shall be notified of the defect within six months after the receipt of the goods, and each description of the evidence of Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number) cannot be seen as the defendant's notification of such defect because it is difficult to consider that the defendant notified such defect, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.