beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 177,750,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 8, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the fact that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with chickens, etc. from August 1, 2016 to October 5, 2016, and the outstanding amount not received from the defendant reaches KRW 177,750,000 can be acknowledged.
According to this, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 177,750,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the document corresponding to the complaint of this case is served to the day of complete payment, unless there are special circumstances.
As to this, the defendant did not request the plaintiff to supply goods, but only accepted the fact that the plaintiff received goods first, and according to this, since the goods transaction contract was not concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, it is argued that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that it was established.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument of the defendant, and rather, it is recognized as above that the plaintiff supplied goods at the request of the defendant, so the above argument of the defendant is without merit.
In addition, the defendant asserts that since the extent of 2/3 of the goods that the plaintiff supplied was supplied to the corporation B, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the goods were supplied to the defendant cannot be complied with.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the defendant, and the fact that the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant is identical to the facts acknowledged earlier (In full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement No. 4, C, the representative director of the corporation B, as the defendant's representative director, can be recognized as the fact that D actually operates both the defendant and the corporation B, and the defendant's above assertion is groundless).
If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.