물품대금 등
1. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s KRW 31,093,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 29, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. Where there is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the Defendant who operates a restaurant with the trade name “B” from April 2014 to January 2015, and the attempted amount reaches KRW 1,093,00,000. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 40 million from June 20, 2014 to January 20, 2016 on the premise that the aforementioned alcoholic beverage supply transaction was conducted, while lending KRW 40,000,000 from April 15, 2014 to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 2 million from January 20, 2016 as of January 20, 2015.
2. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the interest rate for delay damages from November 21, 2014 to the date of full payment. However, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in subparagraph 1, it is acknowledged that the Defendant agreed to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum where the Defendant unilaterally ceases the transaction of alcoholic beverages without prior consultation with the Plaintiff. In light of the purport of the argument in subparagraph 1, the Plaintiff also acknowledged that the Plaintiff voluntarily requested the suspension of the transaction by the Plaintiff from January 2015, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as unilaterally suspending the transaction of alcoholic beverages without prior consultation with the Plaintiff, and there is lack of evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.
3. If so, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 31,093,00,000, and damages for delay calculated by the annual 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 29, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is obvious in the record that the original copy of the payment order was served on the Defendant.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition and remainder.