1. The defendant shall pay 38 million won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from November 3, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on both arguments

가. 원고가 2015. 1. 초순경 피고와 맺은 ‘물품 구매계약’에 따라 그 무렵부터 2015. 2.경까지 여러 차례에 걸쳐 피고에게 철구조물을 납품하였으나, 피고로부터 그 물품대금 중 3,800만원을 받지 못한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없으므로, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피고는 원고에게 그 나머지 물품대금 3,800만원과 이에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 2017. 11. 3.(☞ 이 사건 소장 부본이 피고에게 송달된 다음날; 소장의 청구취지에 나오는 “송달받은 날”은 “송달받은 다음날”의 잘못된 기재로 보이므로, 위와 같이 바로잡는다)부터 다 갚는 날까지 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법이 정한 연 15%의 비율로 셈한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that, by acquiring the Defendant’s remainder of the goods payment obligation against the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff was legally extinguished. ② The Plaintiff received not only the remainder of the goods payment obligation from D, etc. but also the Plaintiff collected part of the goods payment claim from D or E farming association corporations in the compulsory execution procedure (this case’s case’s F, etc.) against each of the goods payment obligations, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unjustifiable.

However, only some of the statements in Eul 1, 2-1, and 2-2 and witness G testimonys made by the witness G, D has taken over the defendant's obligation to pay for the remaining goods to the plaintiff.

In addition, there is a lack to recognize that the Plaintiff received 10 million won from D, etc. or actually recovered the money equivalent to the amount of the claim against the Defendant in the compulsory execution procedure for the property owned by D, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, each of the above arguments presented by the Defendant are all different.