beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of cutting steel materials, cutting rice, cutting grain, and rash processing, and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing the elevator parking lot industry and machinery.
B. From March 2012 to September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff manufactured and processed and supplied iron plates equivalent to KRW 92,772,755 in total to the Defendant. From January 9, 2013 to November 13, 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 55,207,500 out of the price of the said goods from the Defendant and did not receive KRW 37,565,255 in total.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 37,565,255 won due to unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 15, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is obvious that it is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the decision of the payment order in this case.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff unilaterally set the unit price for steel product processing costs and claims for the payment of the instant product. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the payment only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2-2, 12-2, and 7-7 through 10. Rather, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 4-1 through 9, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have settled the price of the goods at the end of each month, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.
B. The Defendant claiming the deduction of KRW 216,000, stated the same amount of KRW 216,00 as the goods supplied under each transaction statement as of July 11, 2013 and July 17, 2013, among the goods claimed by the Plaintiff, and the claim amount of KRW 216,00,000, among the above goods. As such, the Defendant should deduct KRW 216,00,000, which the Plaintiff claimed in duplicate.