물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 150,803,590 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 2, 2015 to March 4, 2015, and the following.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In light of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 1-1 through 20 (each tax invoice), Gap evidence 2 (written confirmation), and Eul evidence 1 (goods transaction contract), the plaintiff, an agricultural product dealer, entered into a contract for goods supply with the defendant on December 10, 2012, under which the plaintiff will continue to supply be made with the defendant on December 10, 2012, and the price from the 16th to the 11th day of the following month is agreed to be paid on the 26th day of each month, and the price from the 16th day to the 11th day of the following month. After that, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with the 150,803,590 won in total from January 2013 to December 2014.
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 150,803,590 won for the above goods and 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from February 2, 2015 to March 4, 2015, which is clear from the date the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant, as requested by the Plaintiff, and from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. On the determination of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant should accurately state the sanitary conditions, delivery temperature, and quantity of the manufacturing factory due to the characteristics of the bean products supplied by the Plaintiff, (i) the Plaintiff, and (ii) the sales amount, upon receipt of a written statement on several occasions as to the sanitary conditions, delivery quantity, etc. required by the 2013, which was the early 2013, but good inside the point of the contract, was not accurately met. (iii) On January 16, 2015, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation of the sales amount for the unpaid goods between the Defendant and the Defendant, and entered the details that the Plaintiff would make more efforts and increase sales and resolve the sales amount of the unpaid goods, and then unilaterally deliver them around February 2015.