beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 62,829,888 won and the above amount at the rate of 12% per annum from June 5, 2020 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur engaged in the business of manufacturing salt with the trade name of “D”, and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business of the original body, etc. with the trade name of “E”.
B. From March 2019 to June 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) colored the original body and supplied it to the Defendant; and (b) total amount of KRW 175,829,888 was incurred.
C. From March 7, 2019 to September 30, 2019, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 113,000,000 out of the above salt coloring expenses.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from June 5, 2020 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of the application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case sought by the Plaintiff with respect to the unpaid salt coloring expenses of KRW 62,829,888 (total salt coloring expenses of KRW 175,829,888 - the already paid amount of KRW 113,00,000) and the above money.
3. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's argument is that the plaintiff's 6,57,80 won clocks (part of 11,881,80 won clocks due to clocks 54,676,00 won clocks) from F Co., Ltd., the business partner of the defendant, and clocks of 51,750,000 won from G, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it (the defendant did not examine evidence submitted by the defendant because he was absent at all on the first and second date for pleading). It is not clear whether the above clocks are due to the plaintiff's responsibility or merely because the defendant's financial situation is not sufficient to make immediate repayment.
The defendant's above assertion cannot be viewed as a defense that can deny the plaintiff's claim.
4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.