beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 87,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from June 1, 2013 to March 29, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells various non-ferrouss, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells valves and franchises.
B. On January 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to manufacture, supply, and sell the main water, such as the floodgate (cases and presses) to be used in the foregoing construction work (hereinafter “the instant product”), under the Act on the Improvement of the Chum of Reservoir Cerh in the Gyeong-gu Agricultural Reservoir, which was performed by a monetary company.
C. The Plaintiff produced and supplied the instant goods to the Defendant by May 31, 2013 in accordance with the foregoing order.
Although the above delivery was completed, the Defendant did not pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff. On March 6, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content demanding the payment of KRW 131,242,940 for the goods. Accordingly, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff totaling KRW 44,242,940 over five times from June 16, 2014 to June 9, 2015, and the unpaid amount exceeded KRW 87,00,000 for the goods.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 8, Eul 1-1 to 6, Eul 3, Eul 4-1 to 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 87,000,000 for the remainder of the goods and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 1, 2013 to March 29, 2017, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserted set-off or deduction from damages due to defects in the instant goods as to the instant goods, as a result of the occurrence of a defect equivalent to KRW 18,169,200 on the instant goods supplied by the Plaintiff, the Defendant spent the repair cost. As such, the amount of goods claimed by the Plaintiff is deducted.