beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 72,942,40 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 1, 2012 to December 4, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed that the Defendant shall be paid KRW 280 million for the intermediate payment of KRW 180 million on the date of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 180 million until September 10, 2012, with the total amount of KRW 80,000,000,000, including the facilities, show goods, etc. of the Damart (hereinafter “instant Em”) located in the racing-si. The Plaintiff agreed that the Defendant be paid by September 30, 2012.
B. On September 11, 2012, the Plaintiff delivered the instant marina to the Defendant, and the Defendant commenced business in the instant marina, and thereafter completed the registration of the change of the said marina business operator to the Defendant on November 5, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 11, witness E's testimony, the purport of whole pleading
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at a rate of 7,063,970 per annum, excluding the remainder of KRW 202,936,030,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff, from September 10, 2012, the remainder of KRW 72,942,40,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 4,121,570, the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff as the unpaid electricity, during the period from September 10, 2012, and the remainder of KRW 72,942,40,00, which is the day following the due date of the payment of the remainder, from October 1, 2012 to December 4, 2014, the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, calculated by 5% per annum as stipulated under the Civil Act, and 20% per annum as to the day of full payment.
(1) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 1, 2012 to the date of full payment. However, there is no ground to deem that damages for delay exceeding 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 1, 2012 to December 4, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that exceeds the above recognition scope is without merit). 3. The Defendant’s defense is without merit.
A. The defendant's defense against set-off 1 against the claim such as the substitute payment, etc., is the plaintiff's Mart of this case.