logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단21674
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 109,349,492 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 1, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Although the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with an automobile air-conditioner for judgment on the cause of the claim, the fact that the outstanding amount received from the Defendant was 109,349,492 is not a dispute between the parties.

Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from August 1, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is clear the following day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant, in accordance with the Plaintiff’s claim.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the purport that "it is necessary for the plaintiff to supply the original rupture for motor vehicles to the defendant, foreign IT elements, which are toxic substances, were detected at the original body supplied by the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant disposed of 13,33 goods manufactured by the original body supplied by the plaintiff. As a result, the defendant sustained damages of 107,434,00 won (the 13,333 value of the discarded finished product, 106,64,000 won), which is 106,670,000 won (the 13,3333 value of the destroyed finished product, 106,64,000 won). Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the claim of this case."

However, according to all evidence submitted by the Defendant, it contains toxic substances, i.e., toxic substances that may cause substantial damage to human health or the environment on the part of the port rupture for motor vehicles supplied by the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant has suffered losses as alleged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge such losses.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow