beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 348,530,388 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 16, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Indication of claim;
A. From May 30, 2014 to March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with computerized expendable items, such as 767,474,091 won, on eight occasions, including 767,474,091 won, and the Defendant paid 418,943,703 won to the Plaintiff as the price for goods.
B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 348,530,38 (i.e., 767,474,091-418,943,703) and to pay 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from March 27, 2015 to April 15, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment by publication of the basis (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).
3. The Plaintiff partially dismissed the claim that the Defendant pay damages for delay from March 27, 2015, which is the day following the date on which the Plaintiff supplied the final goods, and thus, the Defendant is liable for delay from the time of receiving a claim for performance by the Plaintiff on the ground that the above goods amount constitutes a obligation for which the deadline is not fixed with the remainder claim arising under a continuous supply transaction agreement.
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was the date of payment for the goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 27, 2015.
In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the payment of the goods by March 27, 2015, and otherwise there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant is liable for delay from March 27, 2015.
(A) According to the statement of evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff appears to have claimed the payment of the goods to the Defendant on or around July 22, 2015, but no circumstance exists to deem that the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s claim for performance. Therefore, the Defendant’s delayed liability is a duplicate of the instant complaint containing the purport of the claim for performance.