beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. C supplied machinery equivalent to KRW 29,000,000 to the Defendant on December 2, 2016, and received KRW 10,000,000 per delivery date from the Defendant, and the remainder KRW 19,00,000 per delivery date until May 30, 2017, but did not receive any remainder of KRW 19,00,000 until then.
B. On February 8, 2017, based on the claim amounting to KRW 41,008,472 based on the executory exemplification of the payment order for goods purchase-price case, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order for the above goods purchase-price claim (hereinafter “instant collection order”), which C holds against the Defendant (hereinafter “Cheongju District Court 2017 Other Bond 50491”), and its authentic copy was served on the Defendant on February 9, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts, pursuant to the collection order of this case, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, the collection obligee, 19,000,000 won, within the scope of the above-paid claim against the defendant, who is the seized claim, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from May 31, 2017, the following day following the payment due date of the balance of the goods price, to the defendant, until September 19, 2018, which is the date of the judgment of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
B. The Defendant asserted that the above repair cost should be deducted from the claim for the price of goods equivalent to KRW 19,00,000 against the Defendant, on the grounds that the defect in the machinery supplied by C was repaired, such as exchanging parts 3,87,360 won as the defect in the machinery supplied by C. However, each of the entries in the evidence in subparagraphs 1 through 9 above was defective in the machinery supplied by the Defendant from C.
3,877,360 won has been disbursed to repair the defect.