beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 163,148,239 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 17, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in manufacturing, selling, and processing of textile and textile products, and the Defendant is a company engaged in manufacturing, selling, and processing of clothing.
B. From August 2016 to October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with an amount equivalent to KRW 699,312,90 (including KRW 40,000,000 per Y) of the clothing KRW 69,312,90 on two occasions, and made and issued a tax invoice.
C. Around September 2016, the Defendant refused to pay the price of goods on the ground of defects in the goods. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of KRW 17,894,968 on October 22, 2016, deducting KRW 17,894,968 from the cost of selling raw materials, KRW 4,195,620. On November 14, 2016, the Defendant supplied the additional amount of KRW 685,613,552 (=69,312,900 - 17,894,968 won - 17,894,968 won) to the Plaintiff by November 22, 2016. The Defendant paid KRW 4,195,620 to the Plaintiff the price of goods calculated as follows:
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the facts above, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 163,148,239 (i.e., KRW 685,613,552 - 522,465,313) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 17, 2017 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment.
B. The defendant's assertion 1 is first, the plaintiff and the defendant revoked their agreement on the contract for the unit price of 40,000 won per originally set, and the new unit price did not reach an agreement. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with. However, each of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, which seems to correspond thereto, is not trustable, and is not stated in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5.