beta
Text
The defendant shall pay 49,972,650 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from June 11, 2020 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who distributes and supplies agricultural and livestock products with the trade name "C." The defendant is a company that processes and sells raw materials for agricultural and livestock products. The plaintiff and the defendant around February 18, 2020 the plaintiff and the defendant are supplied with freezing scambling from the plaintiff and the settlement date shall be the 10th of the following month after the end of each month: Provided, That the defendant, a home shopping company, provided public relations broadcasting and requested the plaintiff to supply the remaining cambling volume of freezing scam to the plaintiff upon receiving a request for purchase, the plaintiff made an agreement to pay 2 weeks after broadcasting, and accordingly, the plaintiff did not pay the remaining 150 won to the defendant during the period from February 27, 2020 to April 6, 2020, and the defendant supplied the remaining 1050 won to the plaintiff.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining amount of the above goods to the plaintiff 49,972,650 won and delayed damages, barring special circumstances.
B. The defendant's assertion and judgment made that the defendant made a transaction with the above home shopping company upon the plaintiff's introduction, and as long as the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to share the volume, shipping, sales status, etc. of the transaction goods of the above home shopping company at the time of the contract for the supply of goods, the defendant's payment of the price for the goods can be viewed as a flexible transaction. Since the defendant's payment of the price for the goods was not made by the above home shopping company and the management becomes worse because the defendant's payment of the price for the goods was not made by the above home shopping company
I asserts that it cannot be said to the effect that it would not be possible.
The plaintiff and the defendant set forth at the time of the above goods supply contract.