beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 12,90,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 30, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition (i) The Defendant traded goods with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”), and the Defendant’s remainder of the Defendant’s payment for the goods remains in KRW 12.9 million.
D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the non-party company, had the right to pay wages and retirement allowances against the non-party company. The Plaintiff filed a payment order with the non-party company stating that “the non-party company shall pay to the Plaintiff 71,173,091 won and 20% interest per annum from May 15, 2016 to the date of full payment (Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea.63244)” and the above payment order was finalized on September 20, 2016.
Secondly, on October 10, 2016, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to the non-party company’s claim for the amount of KRW 12.9 million against the Defendant, the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016TTTTTTT10658, stating that the original copy of the above payment order was the executive title, and received the above seizure and collection order against the Defendant. The above seizure and collection order were served on the Defendant on October 13, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of 15% per annum from December 30, 2016 to the date of full payment, as requested by the Plaintiff, which is obvious from the day following the instant complaint to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was a practice of returning medicines that have not been actually used once a month between the wholesalers and pharmacies, such as the Nonparty Company, and the Defendant, despite having been holding the Nonparty Company a return medicine amounting to KRW 2,065,840, the Defendant did not return the medicines due to the Nonparty Company’s bankruptcy, and the Plaintiff is Nonparty.