beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 14,508,677 as well as the interest rate from August 14, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “D”, is engaged in the chemical category manufacturing business, and the Defendants are engaged in textile manufacturing and wholesale business, trade business, etc. with the trade name of “E”.
B. On April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendants with a total of KRW 29,754,00 (=(27,655 5,405) x 900) by supplying the Defendant with a total of KRW 29,754,00 (=27,655 x 5,405) x 900).
C. However, on August 20, 2015, the Defendants paid only KRW 15,245,323 out of the price of the goods to the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 14,508,677 (=29,754,00 won - 15,245,323) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 14, 2015 to the date of full payment after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the Defendants, as sought by the Plaintiff.
3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the birth to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) through the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and it was well aware that the Plaintiff supplied the production to the said G through the Defendants, which led to the continuous supply of a considerable amount of living space. However, the Defendants unilaterally discontinued the supply of the original group requested by the Defendants, which led to the suspension of the supply of the Defendant’s supply to G, thereby resulting in the Defendant’s refusal or return of the shipment due to the delay of the payment period from the U.S. buyer, thereby causing damage equivalent to the above amount.
Therefore, the amount of damage claim owned by the Defendants against the Plaintiff is set off against the Plaintiff’s product payment claim against the Defendants.