beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 41,707,240 to the plaintiff and 6% per annum from April 30, 2019 to October 16, 2019.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff is a corporation that runs livestock products wholesale business and retail business. The defendant is a business operator who runs a restaurant in the name of "E" on the 5th floor of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building, and the plaintiff sold 75,476,690 won in total to the restaurant operated by the defendant from January 31, 2019 to April 29, and the fact that the plaintiff was not paid the price of the goods of KRW 41,707,240 among them is not disputed between the parties or can be recognized by the statement in the evidence No. 1 to No. 3.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 41,707,240 won for the unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from April 30, 2019 to October 16, 2019, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The gist of the assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s scrap supplied to the Defendant as “Korea-China” was indicated as “Korea-China”; and (b) the Defendant received from the F on April 2019 a notice of non-conformity, corrective measures, warning, etc. on the ground of the F’s breach of origin labeling.
Therefore, the above supply contract between the defendant and the plaintiff is null and void as a violation of social order, or based on the plaintiff's deception or the defendant's mistake, and the defendant revoked the above supply contract and offset the claim against the plaintiff for damages caused by illegal acts within the extent of equal amount with the claim against the plaintiff.
B. 1) According to each of the statements in evidence Nos. 1 to 3 as to whether to nullify or revoke a supply contract, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s supplied meat is not sufficient (the Defendant received corrective measures, warning, etc. due to the violation of the country of origin since it was clearly stated as the Plaintiff’s meat).
However, Article 7.7.