beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,542,650 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from October 1, 2015 to December 22, 2017.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
A. On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff engaged in the business of manufacturing nanotechnology entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the amount of USD 48 tons (80,600g/0) from USD 146,820 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid USD 78,200 to the Defendant.
B. Since June 12, 2015, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with 12 tons, not Nolol, instead of Nolol. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant sales contract, and the Defendant agreed to return USD 42,350 out of the price to the Plaintiff until November 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Whether there is no dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including virtual numbers), and the ground for appeal as a whole
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 46,542,650 won (US$ 42,350 x exchange rate 1,09 x 1,099 x 17 November 17, 2017, which is the date of the closing of argument in 2017) and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from October 1, 2015 until December 22, 2017, which is the date of the judgment of this case, as well as 15% per annum as 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 Plaintiff received a loan to the Defendant for the payment of the price under the instant sales contract, and suffered losses equivalent to the interest accrued therefrom, and the Plaintiff paid approximately three million won expenses by visiting the Republic of Korea, which the Plaintiff was due to the Defendant’s unfaithful contract performance. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should compensate the Plaintiff for damages for three million won and damages incurred therefrom. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff suffered such damages, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
The defendant's judgment on the defendant's assertion is the plaintiff's ability in Mongolia.