beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 106,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from September 21, 2015 to April 1, 2016.
Reasons
1. Judgment as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits
A. As to the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the price for the goods unpaid to the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff was not a party who entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant, but Docodi business (hereinafter “Docodi business”) and the Plaintiff was not a party.
B. In a lawsuit for performance identical to the lawsuit in this case, a person who asserts himself/herself as a person holding the standing to sue and has the standing to sue as a person holding the latter as a person holding the latter as a person holding the latter's duty to perform performance, and the plaintiff's assertion itself does not require the plaintiff's existence of standing to sue, and the original defendant is not a person holding the right to perform performance or a person holding the latter's duty to perform performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers if there are serial numbers) of the defendant's obligation to pay the unpaid goods, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from September 21, 2015 to April 1, 2016, which is obviously a delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, from September 21, 2015, which is the day following the due date of payment set in the initial content certification, to the day of complete payment.
B. As to the Defendant’s argument, according to the product supply contract concluded on March 2, 2015 with Docodi business (hereinafter “instant contract”), the supplier of the goods agreed to supply the goods only to the Defendant in the multi-level distribution of the gold field in Korea, and the Defendant agreed to supply the goods only to the Defendant.