1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company that manufactures and sells fruits and ices, and the Defendant is a person who operated a supermarket in the trade name of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B apartment shop Non-dong 105, Nam-gu, Incheon.

B. On July 7, 2015, the transaction was suspended on the part of the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with overarching, etc.

Until that time, the price of goods that the plaintiff was not paid by the defendant is KRW 4,515,258.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 4,515,258 won unpaid and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from July 8, 2015 to March 7, 2016, the delivery date of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) asserts that the defendant cannot respond to the claim for the price of goods since the defendant recovered the remaining inventory goods at the time of the suspension of transaction among the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant and processed them for return.

(2) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, even if the Plaintiff had a duty to return and dispose of the stored goods to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff may be acknowledged as having already returned and disposed of the stored goods worth KRW 3,79,275 at the time of the discontinuance of the transaction, by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 2.

On the other hand, even though the plaintiff argued about the existence or scope of the inventory goods to be additionally returned from the first instance court, the defendant did not return the goods and did not submit all the data showing the price of the inventory goods owned by the defendant.

(The defendant only submitted photographs of some goods after the conclusion of the oral argument at the trial. Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.