beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In the name of “C”, the fact that the Plaintiff engaged in wholesale and retail business of construction materials supplied the Defendant with the construction materials equivalent to KRW 12,131,800 from November 7, 2012 to February 21, 2013 does not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the items in subparagraphs A through 4.
B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 7,131,800 won remaining after deducting KRW 5,000,000 from the price of goods paid to the Plaintiff, and to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from February 22, 2013 to June 20, 2014, which is the service date of a copy of the complaint, from February 22, 2013 to June 20, 2014.
2. The defendant's assertion and judgment
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant paid KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff on February 14, 2013 as the repayment of the goods price, and KRW 671,80,000 on the 25th day of the same month. Around 2014, the Defendant returned the amount equivalent to KRW 671,80,00 from among the materials supplied by the Plaintiff, such as the number key and the head of bathing office, etc., and thus, the Defendant’s claim does not remain.
B. First of all, as to KRW 1,460,00 on February 14, 2013, the Defendant appears to have remitted KRW 1,460,00 to the Plaintiff on February 14, 2013. According to the evidence No. 2, the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 1,460,000 to the Plaintiff on February 14, 2013. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said money is the name of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the price for the goods. Rather, in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 5 of the evidence No. 5, the said money can only be recognized as a fact that is the price for the boiler four boiler purchased and supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, separately from the construction materials supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (the Defendant also recognized
2) As to KRW 5,00,000 on February 25, 2013, we examine as follows:
According to the statement No. 2 of Eul, the defendant is the defendant.