beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,720,685 as well as 20% per annum from November 11, 2014 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 26, 2014 and May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied Class 5 (hereinafter “instant goods”) including Vaporler Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant goods”) equivalent to KRW 35,720,685, total amount of KRW 35,720,685 (including value-added tax).
B. The Defendant did not receive the instant goods from the Plaintiff, but requested the Plaintiff to submit a copy of the passbook, its business registration certificate, and its transaction statement on July 24, 2014.
C. On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a copy of the account under the Plaintiff’s name and a statement of transaction, etc. by e-mail, and prepared and sent a written order and a written estimate with the Defendant as the addressee, and issued a tax invoice on the instant goods to be supplied with the Defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts found above, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the terms of the contract for the supply of the instant goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the instant goods transaction. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 11, 2014, the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order sought by the Plaintiff, to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
As to this, the defendant did not order the goods of this case to the plaintiff, and argued that the goods of this case were not supplied by the plaintiff, and only the name of the tax invoice was lent upon the request of Scar Construction in the contract relationship. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted.