beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,32,291 as well as 6% per annum from December 1, 2018 to January 9, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a company manufacturing and selling machinery. The defendant is an individual business operator who operates stacks, metal hold construction business, etc., and the plaintiff continued to supply various stack-related products, etc. to the defendant until November 30, 2018, and the fact that the plaintiff remains without payment of KRW 43,332,291 out of the current price of goods.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 43,32,291 as well as delay damages at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from December 1, 2018 to January 9, 2020, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 12% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.
A. Although the Plaintiff alleged that the goods were supplied to the Defendant, there were defects in the goods supplied, the Plaintiff should compensate the Defendant for the Defendant’s loss due to the defect by reducing the degree of the liability for defect liability.
Since the plaintiff does not comply with the collection and exchange of defective goods even though it is required to collect and exchange them, the plaintiff shall recover the defective goods and deduct the expenses therefor from the price of the goods.
In addition, since the plaintiff supplied goods in excess of the ordered quantity at the time of supplying the goods, the price of the goods supplied in excess should also be deducted.
B. First of all, the defendant alleged that there was a defect in the goods supplied by the plaintiff, and that the goods were supplied in excess of the order, but there is no evidence to prove the above assertion, and the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.
In addition, Article 69 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "When the buyer takes the object in the sale between merchants, it shall be inspected without delay."