beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 705,180,781 as well as 20% per annum from April 5, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a corporation of the People's Republic of China established for the purpose of processing, exporting, etc. of freezing and cooking fishery products, and the defendant is a Korean corporation established for the purpose of processing and exporting fishery products.
B. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant goods supply contract, etc.) on September 18, 2012, which removed the bones, internal organs, etc. of the frozen roof, and left behind only by the removal of the raw bones, etc. through the ftilt processing work.
(B) On October 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a goods supply contract on the condition that the goods are loaded prior to October 30, 2012, on or before the shipment of 20 Mcn 1,000 kilograms. On October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred USD 247,740 (based on the daily exchange rate of KRW 1,094 per day, KRW 271,027,560 per day, KRW 20) to the Defendant. (2) On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a goods supply contract on or before December 30, 2012, on the condition that the 20 Mcn 1,000 tons are loaded, and on November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the goods supply contract to the Defendant at the exchange rate of USD 27,360,360 (based on the exchange rate of KRW 1,2765,285.
3) On November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a goods supply contract on the condition that the freezing roof and 20 metric tons are loaded on or before December 30, 2012. On December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred USD 126,415 (the daily exchange rate of KRW 1,072.9, KRW 135,630,653) to the Defendant (the daily exchange rate of KRW 1,072.9, KRW 135,630,653). Meanwhile, the Defendant did not supply the said goods to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to supply the said goods several times.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including the serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s failure to perform the obligation to supply the goods under the instant product supply contract, thereby cancelling the instant contract for the supply of the goods.