beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,376,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from July 1, 2016 to August 16, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a merchant who manufactures sports, sports implements, smoking clubs, etc. with the trade name “C” in Silung-si, and the Defendant is a merchant who wholesales smoking parts, metal structures, etc. in Sinyang-si, Ansan-si.
B. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff supplied smoking volumeing to KRW 22,946,00 to the Mayang-gun Office. At the time, the Defendant agreed to issue the Plaintiff’s tax invoice and pay the price by the end of the following month.
C. The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on March and May 2016 after the delivery of the said smoking cigarette, and the Defendant paid only KRW 16,570,000 among the above payment, and did not pay KRW 6,376,00.
【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 2-1 and 2
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,376,00,00 which is payable, and the damages for delay calculated by the annual rate of KRW 6% per annum prescribed in the Commercial Act from July 1, 2016, which is the day after the last payment date, to the day when the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served on the Defendant from July 1, 2016, to August 16, 2016, which is obvious that the record is the day when the copy of the complaint in this case is served on the Defendant.
B. The defendant's defense is asserted that the plaintiff's damage claim against the plaintiff and the above unpaid amount are offset against the equal amount, since the plaintiff committed a tort by excluding the defendant from using the defendant's technology, publicity materials, etc. and supplying goods to other places, etc., thereby causing damage to the defendant.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff committed a tort, and the defendant's defense based on such premise is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.