beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,188,750 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 60% per annum from November 21, 2013 to October 16, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that carries on the clothing manufacturing business, and the Defendant is a private entrepreneur that carries on the clothes and auxiliary retail business with the trade name “C” in Daegu-B.
B. From April 2013 to November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied Madrid World Cup for women’s use, and did not receive KRW 60,188,750 as the price for goods. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff received a written confirmation of the balance as to the above amount from Nonparty D’s employee Nonparty D.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60,188,750 of the goods price and the damages for delay at each rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 21, 2013 to October 16, 2015, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, from November 21, 2013, which is the day following the date of the last delivery of the copies of the complaint in this case, and from the following day to the date of full payment.
(Plaintiff is seeking 20% per annum as damages for delay, but Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings was amended, and the statutory interest rate was changed to 15% per annum from October 1, 2015, and the portion exceeding it is rejected).
The judgment on the defendant's assertion is that the defendant recognized KRW 46 million as the remainder of the price of goods from D, who is one's employee, but the plaintiff's assertion that the above D could not be accepted. Thus, as examined in the basic facts that D failed to pay the price of goods as stated in the claim, it was examined in the written confirmation of payment (Evidence 3) that D did not pay the price of goods as stated in the claim. The defendant himself, at the time of his transaction with the plaintiff, was stationed in the production plant in Vietnam, and he was in full charge of the plaintiff's business with D, the above D received comprehensive delegation from the defendant about the plaintiff's business.