beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 225,268,694 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from December 12, 2013 to January 16, 2015 for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries in Gap evidence No. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 15, and Eul evidence No. 17 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of pleadings:
The defendant related to the parties is a company that imports meat such as cattle and pigs, and sells them to meat wholesalers including the plaintiff.
From around 2010, the Plaintiff began meat trade with the Defendant through the Defendant’s head of the business headquarters, and the Plaintiff entered into a meat sales contract with the Defendant under an agreement on the type, quantity, and sales price of the meat, which is the subject matter of sale and purchase, and sold it to retail.
The Defendant’s ordinary transaction method ordinarily takes place through a warehouse. If the Defendant’s employee in charge of the transaction requests the transfer of the kinds, quantity, unit price, etc. of the meat to be sold to the warehouse operator after having agreed on the kinds, quantity, unit price, etc. of the meat to be sold to the said customer, the buyer received the meat through the warehouse operator, and the Defendant was difficult to receive the purchase price from the buyer on the date of delivery or within 2-3 days.
On October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant suspended the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant: “The land transferred to the Plaintiff from September 5, 2013 to October 18, 2013 is an illegally released item; thus, the Plaintiff requested the return thereof; and the Defendant refused such request; on October 25, 2013, the Defendant sent a certificate of prohibition against the release without consent to the Defendant to the Sejong Co., Ltd. that keeps the above meat. The transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was suspended. On October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant maintained the transaction by depositing the purchase price in advance to the Defendant before the Plaintiff purchased the meat, and the deposit remains. Accordingly, the remainder of the money remains until October 31, 2013.