logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.25 2019가단5261926
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 67,606,99 and the interest rate of KRW 60% per annum from August 29, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. From July 31, 2014 to February 27, 2015, the date for the payment of the raw materials of the fiber amounting to KRW 67,606,99 shall be determined and supplied from February 28, 2015 to April 17, 2015 by the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the manufacturing, selling, etc. of fiberss liable to pay the goods. However, the Defendant is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at a rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act, as the Plaintiff seeks to pay the unpaid goods to the Plaintiff from July 31, 2014 to February 27, 2015.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant paid an amount equivalent to the above price of the goods, and the plaintiff asserted that the obligation to pay the remainder of the goods was sugared, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the above claim for the price of goods has expired.

On the other hand, the following facts are revealed: (a) the statute of limitations is three years with respect to the claim for the price of goods sold by merchants; and (b) the fact that the instant lawsuit was brought on August 29, 2019 with the lapse of three years from April 17, 2015, which was the last time specified as the payment date; (c) however, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 4 through 10, the Defendant’s representative E, who actually operated the Defendant, was in charge of the transaction with the Plaintiff, and paid the price (the Defendant is acting as the agent in the instant lawsuit) from April 30, 2015 to July 27, 2017, and it can be recognized that the Defendant repeatedly expressed his intent to recognize the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the price of goods, and thus, the Defendant against the Plaintiff.

arrow