1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 66,20,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 18, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

Facts of recognition

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and no other counter-proof exists.

[Defendant's assertion that the amount stated in Gap's evidence No. 1 (U.S.) was altered after its preparation, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, so the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.]

The Plaintiff operating a power distribution team manufacturing business, etc. with the trade name of “C” has supplied E with goods such as cases, etc. under the trade name of “D”, and E has supplied the Defendant with goods such as machinery.

B. On January 13, 2018, the Defendant drafted a payment note stating that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 66.2 million by January 31, 2018” to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant payment note”).

Judgment

According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, by preparing and delivering the instant payment note to the Plaintiff, the Defendant concluded an agreement that the Defendant would directly pay KRW 66.2 million to the Plaintiff by shortening the process of paying the price of goods to E and paying the price of goods to E.

Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 18, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, pursuant to the instant payment order, to the Plaintiff.

As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff does not bear the obligation to pay according to the instant payment note, merely because it merely prepares and prepares the instant payment note to the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the empirical rule, the defendant's above argument is hard to believe, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above argument.

Rather, A.