logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원경주지원 2015.11.03 2015가단2273
물품잔대금
Text

1. The Defendant: KRW 22,845,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from July 17, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and

Reasons

The Plaintiff agreed to sell synthetic resin to the Defendant, and delivered synthetic resin equivalent to KRW 68,970,00,000, around October 2014, and KRW 26,125,000, around November 2014, and KRW 1,045,000, around January 2015, and KRW 68,970,000, as there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 22,845,00, excluding KRW 46,125,00,00, which the Plaintiff was paid, and damages for delay calculated at the annual rate from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to September 30, 2015, to the day of full payment of KRW 22,845,00,000, which is the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment.

(1) The Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 1, 2015 to the date of full payment. However, according to the amendment of the provision on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Encouragement, etc. of Legal Proceedings, 15% per annum, which is the legal interest rate as amended, shall apply from October 1, 2015, which is the enforcement date of the Act. Accordingly, the part claiming damages for delay in excess of the revised legal interest rate, is dismissed. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant suffered damages due to defective defects, such as quality quantity, etc. in products produced by using raw materials supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and thus,

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant suffered damage or that the defendant suffered damage, the above assertion by the defendant is rejected.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow