beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,282,440 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 28, 2018 to April 21, 2020.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
From March 10, 2016 to August 30, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods, such as clothes, clothes, confluences, and weapons, and leased the vehicle (C-wing vehicles) with a fee of KRW 400,000 per time.
The Defendant supplied goods worth KRW 36,312,440 from the Plaintiff around the above period and the fact that the said vehicle was leased on three occasions (see the 6th pleading protocol of this case on December 17, 2019). The Defendant paid KRW 16 million to the Plaintiff as the price for the goods supplied as above.
[Ground of recognition] A. 3 and 11 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: according to the above facts finding, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 21,512,440 won (=36,312,440 won + 1,200,000 + 16,000 won - 16,000 won - 16,440 won after deducting 3230,00 won as the price for the materials supplied by the plaintiff from the defendant as the price for the materials provided by the defendant, and to pay damages for delay calculated annually by the following day of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case from December 28, 2018 to April 21, 2020, where it is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to perform, 5% per annum from the following day to the date of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.
The Plaintiff asserts that, in addition to the amount the Defendant was the Defendant from March 10, 2016 to August 30, 2016, the amount equivalent to 33,405,085 won (i.e., KRW 69,717,525 - KRW 36,312,440) was supplied more to the Defendant, and that the vehicle rent was also more than once. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.
In addition, the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from September 1, 2016 after the end of the last transaction, but there is no evidence that there is no agreement as to the due date for the payment of the price of the instant goods. Therefore, the said obligation is a debt with no fixed time limit.