beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 33,205,00 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 6% per annum from April 1, 2014 to July 2, 2015; and (b) July 3, 2015 for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including each number), together with the purport of the whole pleadings:
The Plaintiff is a legal entity that manufactures and sells Alumin aluminium crowdfunding, and the Defendant is a personal entrepreneur who runs the wholesale and retail business of Aluminium in the trade name of “B”.
B. From July 2013 to March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with an aggregate of KRW 59,305,000,00, over the aggregate of KRW 256 Alinium crowdfunding 256.
C. By August 4, 2014, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff totaling KRW 26,100,000 out of the price of the goods.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 33,205,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 1, 2014 to July 2, 2015, which is the day following the day on which the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff with the goods, as prescribed by the Commercial Act, and from July 3, 2015 to September 30, 2015, as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., as the same shall apply.
B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant paid KRW 3,970,500, in addition to KRW 26,100,000, which was recognized earlier, around August 4, 2014. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the Defendant’s defense solely with the descriptions in subparagraph 2-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
Then, the defendant asserts that the unit price for some of the Aluminium estest trading supplied by the plaintiff was erroneously applied, and thus, the plaintiff's business member also agreed to reduce the above amount. Thus, the above amount should be deducted from the price for the goods claimed by the plaintiff. However, the defendant's evidence submitted by the defendant alone is sufficient.