beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,329,842 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from November 4, 2014 to February 26, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that engages in manufacturing electronic equipment and sales business of non-ferrous metals, and the Defendant is a legal entity that engages in developing, manufacturing, and sales business of strawing equipment.
B. The Plaintiff has continuously traded goods with the Defendant by delivering non-ferrous metals, such as “EDB-25H P-5” to the Defendant. As of November 3, 2014, the date of the last transaction, the Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 31,329,842 to the Plaintiff.
(B) The Defendant asserted that the amount of the goods that the Plaintiff did not pay to the Plaintiff is different. However, according to the evidence indicated below, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted, since the Defendant’s amount of the goods that the Plaintiff did not pay to the Plaintiff as of November 3, 2014, as of November 3, 2014, can be recognized as totaling KRW 31,329,842, which is the last transaction date. [The ground for recognition] The Defendant’s assertion is without dispute, each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, and 10 (including each number)
2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 31,329,842 won for the unpaid goods and 6% per annum from November 4, 2014, which is the day following the last transaction day to February 26, 2015, which is the day of service of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, under the main text of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the main text of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015), and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.