beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,206,935 as well as 6% per annum from November 14, 2014 to March 10, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From May 12, 2011 to January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff engaged in the wholesale retail business of electric wires and electric machinery and appliances with the trade name “B” supplied the Defendant with electric equipment and appliances equivalent to KRW 41,255,730 at the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, the Suhyup Bank, and the Gangnam-gu and Seo-gu, Seoul.
B. During the above supply period, the Defendant remitted the total amount of KRW 28,048,795 on September 14, 201, among the supply price of the said electric equipment, to the Plaintiff as well as KRW 28,048,795 on November 22, 2011, and the Defendant transferred the money to C to the Plaintiff for the payment of the price.
C. The Defendant filed a value-added tax return with the National Tax Service from September 201, when receiving (electronic) tax invoices equivalent to the value of supply of the machinery and materials issued by the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers in the case of provisional number), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant supplied the materials of this case from the plaintiff via C, and the plaintiff knew the defendant as his counter-party and supplied the whole equipment. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the provisions of the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 14, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, to the plaintiff (=41,255,730 won - 28,048,795 won) and to the plaintiff for delay from November 14, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case.
3. The judgment on the defense was made by the Defendant, as it had C pay the Plaintiff cash for the purchase of materials and the expenditure of the goods, the Defendant’s obligation extinguished.