beta
Text
1. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: 28,439,00 won and 5% per annum from December 25, 2014 to April 2, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff Company entered into a contract with the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and the Plaintiff Company to supply materials, such as fences, signboards, etc. required for “C installation work” that the Plaintiff Company received from the Defendant Company, to KRW 32 million from the Defendant Company.
(hereinafter “instant supply contract”). Moreover, on December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff Company paid 9.6 million won to the Defendant Company according to the instant supply contract, and around that time, installed a fenced with materials equivalent to the aforementioned advance payment amount.
B. After that, on January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff Company paid 28,439,000 won for the remainder of the materials to the Defendant Company, but the Defendant Company did not supply the materials equivalent to the above price to the Plaintiff Company.
[Ground for recognition] According to the above facts of determination as to claims against the Defendant Company for determination of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the entire pleadings, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff Company damages for nonperformance of the obligation to supply materials under the instant supply contract at the rate of 28,439,00 won for the materials cost of January 29, 2014 and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the date following the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint from December 25, 2014 to April 2, 2015, the date following the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint from December 25, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
(1) The Plaintiff Company claimed damages for delay from January 30, 2014, the following day after the Plaintiff Company paid the above KRW 28,439,000 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case. However, it is difficult to recognize that the due date for the supply of materials by the Plaintiff Company was January 29, 2014, and there is no other evidence that the due date for the supply of materials by the Defendant Company could be known, and thus, the Plaintiff Company’s claim against the Defendant B is rejected.