beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 31,107,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 19, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. The fact that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, and comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1 through 10, the plaintiff has continuously supplied oil to the defendant from 2013 to 2015. The defendant prepared and delivered a written confirmation to the plaintiff on February 28, 2015 that the amount payable to the plaintiff is KRW 31,107,000, and the plaintiff paid the amount additionally from the defendant while supplying the oil, but the defendant still failed to pay the above KRW 31,107,00 among the amount paid for the oil.
According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining oil payment to the plaintiff the above 31,107,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 19, 2016 to the day of full payment after a copy of the complaint of this case was served on the plaintiff.
2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion is that the person who received oil from the plaintiff is not the defendant, but the father of the defendant, and C renounced his inheritance after the death of June 24, 2015. The plaintiff's claim is unjust.
According to the evidence No. 1, C died on June 24, 2015, and the defendant's renunciation of inheritance as C's heir can be recognized.
However, as acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 31,107,000, separately from the inheritance of C’s obligation, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant prepared and delivered a written confirmation of oil price in the name of the Defendant to the Plaintiff on February 28, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff supplied oil to the Defendant even after the preparation of the said written confirmation; and (c) the Defendant paid the price.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.