beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,307,60 and the annual interest rate of KRW 20% from February 4, 2014 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a supplier of food products, etc., and the Defendant is a business operator who runs food retail business, etc.
B. The Plaintiff entered into a continuous supply contract with the Defendant to supply the food products to the Defendant, and supplied the food products to the Defendant until December 2012 under the said contract. The amount of the goods unpaid as of December 26, 2012, which is the final delivery date, reaches KRW 39,307,60.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading
2. According to the above fact-finding, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 39,307,600, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from February 4, 2014 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
In regard to this, the defendant is not present on the date of pleading while seeking to submit all of the plaintiff's transaction details (including the part with a limit of three years, in particular), without any specific error in his/her own account, and is also not present on the date of pleading. In cases where several claims are established for the same kind of object due to a continuous transaction between the same parties, if the debtor does not designate a specific obligation and performs part of the obligation, the debtor shall be deemed to have granted approval for the remaining obligation, unless there are other special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da1790, May 13, 1980). Accordingly, according to the data submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant appears to have settled part of the obligation with respect to the above continuous transaction relationship with the plaintiff from time to time of the above final delivery, and it cannot be seen that there are parts of the three-year extinctive prescription as to the claim for the defendant's assertion.