beta
Text
1. Defendant A’s KRW 117,848,488 as well as 6% per annum from February 12, 2015 to November 5, 2015.
Reasons
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and evidence No. 8 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.
The plaintiff is a corporation whose purpose is the manufacturing business of household parts, etc., and the defendant A is "B" in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, which is an individual business operator engaged in the manufacturing and distribution business of general hardware, etc., and "Defendant B and the defendant company".
It is a corporation with the purpose of building materials, retail business, etc.
B. The Plaintiff’s supply of goods to Defendant A supplied household parts, such as the third half-day, to Defendant A from 2010 to June 24, 2013. The amount of goods that Defendant A failed to pay to the Plaintiff was KRW 117,848,488.
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, Defendant A is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 117,848,488, and the amount of delay damages at the rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from February 12, 2015 to November 5, 2015, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the amount of delay damages at the rate of 115% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
B. On February 25, 2013, Defendant A’s assertion on Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A’s business place was provisionally attached to a large amount of taxes and a large amount of taxes for the former business place to be paid to the former business place. Around February 25, 2013, Defendant A decided to sell the existing business place to KRW 1.04 billion between the non-party Dongyang Industrial Co., Ltd. and the former business place. Since the restriction on rights, such as provisional seizure, etc. established in the business place, should be cancelled in order to make the sale smooth, Defendant A and et al. adjust their obligations with the creditors such as the Plaintiff, etc., and the remainder would be exempted from the payment. Accordingly, Defendant A paid KRW 54 million from the sales price of the business place to the Plaintiff around April 5, 2013.