beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,760,856 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from November 29, 2011 to June 16, 2014.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. According to the Defendant’s order that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Defendant’s discretionary processing costs under the name of “B,” the fact that the Plaintiff did not receive the full amount of KRW 20,760,856 for the above period, even if it did not dispute between the parties, or that it was not paid the full amount of KRW 20,760,856 for the above period from October 12, 2009 to November 28, 201, in accordance with the Defendant’s order that operates the manufacturing and selling company of paintingss, etc., and the Defendant’s order.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above processing costs of KRW 20,760,856, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from November 29, 201 to June 16, 2014, the delivery date of the complaint in this case, which is the date of delivery of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. The defendant's defense was accepted to the effect that the plaintiff should deduct the amount of the above deduction, on the grounds that the plaintiff's defense should be acknowledged, since the plaintiff's failure to pay the bad amount or delayed delivery date was set to the plaintiff on November 201, 2010, and that the plaintiff should deduct 9 million won out of the amount of the amount of the contract processing on November 201, 2010. Thus, the above defense is without merit.
In addition, since the defendant agreed to dispose of the plaintiff's original body, which was kept in custody in the plaintiff's warehouse between the plaintiff and the defendant on November 201, 201 as well as the above deduction amount and agreed to adjust the remaining original body of the defendant, the plaintiff's claim for the discretionary processing costs of this case was extinguished. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's defense is without merit.
2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.