beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 80,275,550 as well as 15% per annum from April 7, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including each number number), it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff, who runs the machinery parts manufacturing business under the trade name of "B" from May 2015 to January 28, 2016, ordered and supplied the machinery parts, such as scrap scrap, etc. from the defendant from May 2015 to January 28, 2016, did not receive KRW 80,275,550 out of the price.
According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 80,275,550, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 7, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day of service of documents corresponding to the instant complaint, which is equivalent to the instant complaint.
As to this, the defendant asserts that, even though the defendant did not place an order, the plaintiff claimed the price on the premise that the plaintiff supplied the goods upon the defendant's order, and also, the transportation cost for transporting the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant's vehicle should be settled. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request of this case before settling such part.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff claims the price under the premise that the plaintiff supplied the goods that was not ordered by the defendant with the only descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, there is no evidence to support the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff would settle the costs incurred in transporting the delivered goods.
(Plaintiff asserted that the price of delivered goods was determined by considering the cost of transportation, but the Defendant did not make any reply against it. Ultimately, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.