beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 57,490,400 as well as 5% per annum from October 28, 2015 to April 7, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Although the non-indicted Tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”) supplied the Defendant with Cheongdong Distribution Equipment, proportional control equipment, and so forth from May 2012 to August 30, 2012, the Defendant did not pay KRW 57,490,400 as the price for the goods.
B. On September 10, 2012, Nonparty Company transferred the above claim against the Defendant to C, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on December 27, 2013.
C. On June 11, 2015, C transferred the above claim for the price of goods to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the same day.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 57,490,400 won and interest in arrears to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the goods of Nonparty Company constitutes a price for the goods sold by the merchants, and thus, the extinctive prescription has expired on August 30, 2015, which was three years after August 30, 2012, the date of supply of the final goods.
In full view of the evidence No. 6 of this case and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant can be recognized as having received notification of the assignment of claims from the non-party company on December 30, 2013, and thus, the claim for the price of the goods was suspended on the same day. Since the lawsuit in this case was filed on September 10, 2015 and the period of extinctive prescription has not expired, it is apparent that the above assertion is without merit.
3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim for the purchase price of goods at the rate of 57,490,400 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 28, 2015 to the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit.