logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.11.20 2019가단529465
기타(금전)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,730,603 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from May 17, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a company that runs the poly Estephting business, and the defendant is a company that runs the film manufacturing business.

B. Around July 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the condition that he/she would hosting and process polyste films provided by the Defendant and deliver them to the Defendant, and until March 2019, the Plaintiff supplied the processed coste films to the Defendant.

C. However, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff some of KRW 42,730,603 out of the processing costs (i.e., some of KRW 17,241,491 out of October 2018, which was KRW 3,398,076, January 15, 2019, KRW 6,154,335, and each value-added tax is included in the amount of KRW 15,936,701, January 15, 2019).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 42,730,603 unpaid processing costs and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum 12% per annum from May 17, 2019 to May 31, 2019, the next day of the service of the original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff, and from the next day of the amendment of the relevant provisions to the day of full payment (based on the interest rate prior to the amendment of the relevant provisions) and from the next day to the day of full payment (based on the interest rate following the amendment of the relevant provisions).

B. As to this, the Defendant offered film 6,000 meters to the Plaintiff for sampling work, and the Defendant did not receive a refund of film 5,800 meters remaining after use from the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff did not pay the processing cost claimed by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's defense is based on the premise that the duty to return films remaining after the plaintiff's sampling work should be performed in preference to the defendant's duty to pay processing costs, but the defendant's defense is not submitted at all supporting evidence.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.

arrow