beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of approximately KRW 140,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 per ton, to the site of the construction work for the apartment housing (unit housing) located within the territory of the Defendant’s construction (hereinafter “instant construction work”); the contract term “within the period of construction for the structural construction performed by the Defendant (limited to January 30, 2016)”; and the goods supply contract with the method of payment “within two weeks after the concrete installation of other concrete construction works” (hereinafter “instant contract”). From December 24, 2015 to January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the iron bars equivalent to KRW 60,70,000,000,000 for each of the instant construction works, including the Plaintiff’s number 1 to 30,016, respectively.
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of KRW 52.7 million (i.e., the price of goods 62.7 million - the price of the goods - the price of KRW 10 million ) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from January 31, 2016 to September 17, 2017, the date following the last day of the contract term, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, from September 31, 2017, and from the next day to the date of full payment. The Defendant’s assertion on March 3, 201
A. Although the Defendant alleged to the effect that it did not conclude the instant contract with the Plaintiff, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s seal affixed to the consumer column among the instant contract, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is rejected.
In addition, since the defendant renounced the construction of this case under the agreement with the owner B, and the defendant paid the price for the goods unpaid to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified.