매매대금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,280,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 20, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff supplied the defendant from around 2013 to the defendant with e-mail and block, and the defendant has paid the plaintiff the price in advance, and the fact that the price of the non-paid fishery product as of July 26, 2016 reaches KRW 25,280,000.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 25,280,000 won with 15% interest per annum from August 20, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff supplied approximately KRW 2,500 to the Defendant, and approximately KRW 1,500 to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 17,916,480 to the Plaintiff for three years.
Therefore, 17,916,480 won out of the unpaid amount of fishery products should be reduced.
B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence and evidence set forth earlier and the evidence set forth in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number), which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff issued a transaction statement while supplying the Defendant with the entire fishery products, and the transaction statement contain the quantity, unit price, amounts receivable, etc. of each fishery product, and the Defendant continued to confirm the transaction statement with the Plaintiff for a long time and continued transactions with the Plaintiff, it is deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to trade the fishery products at the price set forth in the transaction statement. If the price of the fishery products supplied by the Plaintiff is lower than the market price, the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot claim the reduction of the difference on this ground.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.