beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 102,362,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from March 30, 2017 to May 8, 2020.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C on March 2017, supplied the Defendant with an equivalent of KRW 120,120,000 at the market price.
B. The Defendant, on March 29, 2017, issued a false statement to the victim C that “I would immediately settle the price after 2-3 hours since the supply of the destroyed goods for export to China,” even though the Defendant did not intend to pay the price even if he was supplied with the worn-out goods, and received the destroyed goods equivalent to KRW 120,120,000 at the market price on March 29, 2017, and acquired them by deception.
‘The crime' was committed in Busan District Court on July 12, 2019, sentenced to one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of social service, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as the withdrawal of the defendant's appeal.
C. C, on August 2, 2019, transferred KRW 102,362,00, out of the claim for the amount of goods against the Defendant, and KRW 102,362,00, out of the damage claim against the Defendant on April 10, 2020, respectively, and the Plaintiff notified each of the claims assignment on behalf of C at the time of the said transfer.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 4, 9, Eul 1's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the claim for damages caused by a tort
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff who acquired the damage claim against the defendant by C to compensate for damages caused by the tort, 102,362,000 won, and damages for delay.
B. The Defendant alleged that (1) the destroyed goods was supplied by the offset agreement (A) the Defendant paid KRW 63,403,200 to C on September 13, 2016, but C did not supply school but did not supply school but, thereafter, the Defendant agreed with C to offset C’s claim for the destroyed goods supplied by C and the Defendant’s claim for the return of school butts. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s damages should be recognized only by deducting the above school butts.
(b).