beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 55,495,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 12, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply goods to the Defendant with a unit price of KRW 8,500,000, which is to be supplied to the Defendant. After which, from November 2013 to January 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a unit price of KRW 71,995,00 in total, and issued a tax invoice equivalent to the above amount.
B. On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff received reimbursement from the Defendant of KRW 16.5 million out of the price of the goods.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 6, 9, 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of 5,495,000 won (=71,95,000 won - 16,500,000 won) and damages for delay.
B. The defendant's assertion (1) asserts that the plaintiff made a defect in the functional heat equivalent to the total amount of KRW 71,995,000 from November 201, 2013 to January 2014, and that the plaintiff made a contribution to achieve the plaintiff's business objectives in the future.
In light of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 8, each of the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was an agreement to donate the above functional heat to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff agreed to donate the above functional heat to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.
(2) The Defendant alleged that the goods supply contract was forged on November 1, 2013, and thus, in light of the description of evidence Nos. 6 and 9, each of the evidence submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is not accepted.
(3) The Defendant is related to A’s injury on December 13, 2013.