beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.28 2014나60858

제품대금

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant (Appointed Party) shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,183,00,000.

Reasons

1. Determination on the claim for the price of goods

A. The plaintiff asserted that around October 2008, the defendant, the designated parties B, and C (in case where the designated parties, including the defendant, are collectively referred to as "the defendant, etc.," the plaintiff supplied the settlement of women's settlement, etc., and the plaintiff asserts to the effect that it seeks payment of KRW 39,183,000.

B. We examine the judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and 9, and the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to Han Bank Co., Ltd. by this court is insufficient to deem that the plaintiff supplied the above goods to the defendant, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the purport of the argument in the items Nos. 3 and 7, the plaintiff is only recognized to have supplied the above goods to E.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.

2. Determination on the claim for the amount of a bill

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant et al. jointly issued and delivered promissory notes worth KRW 39,183,000 at par value on November 18, 2008, the Plaintiff would seek payment of promissory notes against the Defendant et al.

B. 1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 and the part against the Defendant, the Defendant, on November 18, 2008, issued the Plaintiff on November 18, 2008; the due date on December 17, 2008; and the face value of KRW 39,183,000 (the second promissory note).

Since it is recognized that the Defendant issued and delivered the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 39,183,000 won with 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from December 18, 2008 to May 30, 2014, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., from the next day to the day of full payment.

As to this, the defendant alleged that the promissory note was issued by the plaintiff's duress, but Eul.