beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 106,575,00 for the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from March 19, 2018 to May 31, 2019.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant B corporation
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments and arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10 through 17 (including paper numbers), and the fact-finding results of the fact-finding conducted by this court with respect to E Co., Ltd., the plaintiff (former trade name: F), and Defendant B Co., Ltd., which is Malaysia, (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Co., Ltd.") are to export goods to Malaysia, while the plaintiff (former trade name: F), and Malaysia are to export goods on December 29, 2016; KRW 43,925,000 on February 29, 2017; KRW 33,000,000 on February 32, 2017; KRW 325,000 on February 21, 2017; KRW 27,500,000 on March 10, 2017; and
Therefore, the Defendant Company changed the claim amount to KRW 106,575,000 for the Plaintiff’s 106,575,000 among the above goods price to KRW 106,575,00 in the application form for change of the claim and the cause of the claim as of July 2, 2019.
The Defendant Company is obligated to pay 15% per annum from March 19, 2018 to May 31, 2019, the following day after the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant Company, to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the provisions of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019); and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases
(A) The plaintiff's claim for damages for delay exceeding the above recognized portion is rejected).
The defendant company's argument as to the defendant company's assertion is not a plaintiff but a company G, and the plaintiff merely stated in export-related documents in order to create export performance of G company G. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the fact that the plaintiff exported the defendant company to the defendant company is as seen earlier.
The defendant company's above assertion is accepted.