beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 268,214,837 as well as its annual 6% from November 30, 2015 to August 17, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 8 as to the cause of the claim, the fact that the plaintiff for the purpose of producing and selling fertilizers supplied fertilizers to the defendant from February 28, 2013 to June 25, 2015, and that the defendant's representative B around November 30, 2015, signed the balance inquiry statement with the content that the amount of the goods payment for the plaintiff supplied with the fertilizer as above and borne by the defendant against the plaintiff is KRW 268,214,837, and signed and sealed the defendant's seal.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 268,214,837 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from November 30, 2015 to August 17, 2017, which is the delivery date of the copy of the application for modification of claim and cause of claim of this case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is not acceptable since the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is unilaterally demanded to pay to the defendant, even though the plaintiff's claim is an amount arising from the transaction relationship between the plaintiff and C.
However, as seen earlier, around November 30, 2015, the Defendant’s representative B signed and sealed the Defendant’s corporate seal on the balance inquiry statement stating that the Defendant’s obligation to pay the amount of goods to the Plaintiff is KRW 268,214,837.
According to this, the plaintiff's ground for claim of this case not only is recognized, but at least it can be recognized that the defendant agreed to pay the amount of goods equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff, so the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.
3. The plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.