beta
Text
1. As to USD 31,95 and USD 31,373 among them, the Defendant from January 17, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around 2015, the Plaintiff (A citizen of the People’s Republic of China) entered into a contract with the Defendant (a corporation established under the laws of the Republic of Korea) to supply lighting and other goods (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. On June 8, 2016, the Defendant agreed to pay USD 100,000 to the Plaintiff the U.S. currency (hereinafter “U.S. currency”) for the amount of unpaid goods under the instant contract by July 30, 2016 (see, e.g., evidence 1-1; hereinafter “Agreement 1”).
C. On September 21, 2016, the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff that “The remainder, excluding USD 25,000 already paid, out of USD 100,00 as stipulated in the first agreement, shall be paid until the end of November 2016, and if not paid until then, 10% interest per annum shall be paid (see evidence 1-2, hereinafter “second agreement”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to Article 1(1)(a) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter “Convention”), the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter “Convention”) applies to contracts for the sale of goods between both parties in which the pertinent country is a contracting party and the other contracting parties. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant contracts are contracts for the sale of goods between the Plaintiff having a place of business in the People’s Republic of China and the Defendant having a place of business in the Republic of Korea. Since both the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea are contracting parties to the Convention, the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is applicable to this case.
However, the parties are excluded from the application of the Convention (Article 6 of the Convention), and since the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the applicable law applicable to this case on the seventh day for pleading, they excluded the application of the Convention, Article 25 of the Act on Private International Law concerning the governing law of the contract.