beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,087,072 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from December 23, 2014 to August 31, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the wholesale and manufacturing business of steel materials, and the Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing air control devices and automobile parts.
B. From December 20, 2013 to December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant supplied parts of the Plaintiff’s special lecture (S45C returned, etc.) to the Defendant, and the Defendant traded by way of paying the price after receiving the goods.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding together the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff can be acknowledged as constituting a cause of 30,087,072 as of December 22, 2014. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from December 23, 2014 to August 31, 2015, which is within the scope prescribed by the Commercial Act, which is within the limit of 15% per annum, from the following day of the final supply date for the Plaintiff, and from the date of the supply of each product to the date of full payment.
① The Customer Director (Evidence A) submitted by the Plaintiff includes the Plaintiff’s supply details and the Defendant’s deposit details from December 1, 2013 to December 22, 2014, which began the transaction.
In addition, whenever the Plaintiff supplies each product, it is deemed that the Plaintiff prepared a statement of transaction (Evidence A No. 4) on each date each time it supplies the product to the Defendant, and the signature appears to have been prepared by the Defendant on each transactional statement. As such, most of the details of each transactional statement and the supply details of the customer director are consistent, the Plaintiff’s customer director did not make a false statement or a change after the fact.
② Also, the Plaintiff.