beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 42,393,600 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 18,252,80 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from June 5, 2014 to May 1, 2016 to each of them.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s garment processing, etc. of the Plaintiff A’s clothes (1) delivered the instant clothing to the Defendant by March 2014 after receiving a request for a clinical processing of the clothing from the Defendant, but did not receive KRW 57,600,000 from the Defendant.
(2) On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff A received KRW 15,206,40 from the Defendant in lieu of the payment of KRW 15,200 out of the above contractual processing costs.
B. (1) Plaintiff B’s clothes processing process, etc. (1) sent the clothing to the Defendant by March 2014 after receiving a request from the Defendant for a clinical processing of clothing, and then processed the clothing, but did not receive KRW 24,800,000 from the Defendant.
(2) On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff B received KRW 6,547,200 from the Defendant in lieu of the payment of KRW 6,547,200 among the above contractual processing costs.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A the unpaid processing costs of KRW 42,393,600 (=57,600,000 - 15,206,400), and 18,252,800 won (=24,80,000 - 6,547,200) for each of the above clothes supply costs, and for which the Plaintiffs seek as of June 5, 2014, from June 19, 2016 to May 19, 2016, 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act, and from the next day to the day of full payment, damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that each of the above obligations against the plaintiffs was fully paid by delivering the pointer owned by the defendant to the plaintiffs as above, but the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of Eul alone are alone owned by the plaintiffs.