beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 31,913,046 as well as 15% per annum from July 6, 2018 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff Company established on December 26, 2016 for the purpose of the business of export and import trade, etc. of high-end judgment on the cause of the claim, supplied livestock products, etc. equivalent to KRW 37,696,421 in total to the Defendant from January 8, 2018 to January 31, 2018. The fact that the amount not paid from the Defendant exceeds KRW 31,913,046 is either a dispute between the parties, or that the whole purport of the arguments as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 3 is recognized by taking account of the following:
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 31,913,046 won due to the above payment and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from July 6, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case filed by the plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. At the time of April 22, 2016, D, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, bears the Defendant’s liability for damages equivalent to KRW 40,271,400, as it is an individual entrepreneur operating a personal enterprise with the trade name “A”.
Therefore, if the Defendant offsets the Defendant’s damage claim against the Plaintiff’s representative director D against the Plaintiff’s automatic claim against the unpaid payment claim against the Defendant in equal amount, the Defendant’s claim for the unpaid payment claim is extinguished in full, and thus, it cannot comply with the Plaintiff
B. In order to set-off a judgment, the parties should first have the claims against the other party at the time of set-off. In principle, automatic claims and hand-off claims should be against the other party, except for exceptions provided for in Articles 418, 2, 434, 451(2), 451(1), and 445(1) of the Civil Act.
However, in this case, the defendant's assertion itself is the damage claim against the defendant's D, and the claim of this case, which is the passive claim, is not D, but the plaintiff company.