logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.04 2017가단88184
물품대금 등
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 118,172,748 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from January 1, 2016 to September 8, 2017.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a corporation that runs the import, wholesale and retail business, etc. of glass and other glass products, and the defendant is a corporation that runs a wholesale and retail business of glass.

The Plaintiff imported foreign glass from around 2007 to December 2015, and delivered it to the Defendant. The Defendant did not pay some of the price, and the unpaid amount remains at KRW 118,172,748 as of December 31, 2015.

On December 31, 2015, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation that the Defendant would immediately pay the unpaid amount of KRW 118,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff by selling the Defendant’s factory site.

Even after 2016, the Plaintiff supplied favorable benefits to the Defendant and received full payments, but the said unpaid amount of KRW 118,172,748 has not yet been paid.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute exists. According to the facts of the above recognition of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 118,172,748 won of the above unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from January 1, 2016 to September 8, 2017, which is clear from the date of delivery of the original copy of the payment order of this case to the defendant after the date of supply of the above goods, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

Although the plaintiff and the defendant alleged that they agreed to pay in installments for three months from November 2017 between the plaintiff and the defendant, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow