logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.10 2019가단5087982
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,385,908 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from December 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019.

Reasons

In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is found to have manufactured and supplied the main items equivalent to KRW 30,385,908 to the defendant on November 30, 2017. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to pay the price for the goods to the plaintiff 30,385,908 won and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim for damages was filed by the original company due to defects in the main goods supplied by the plaintiff, and the damage therefrom is more than the amount of the plaintiff's obligation to pay for the goods to the plaintiff, and thus it cannot be complied with the plaintiff's claim. However, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant suffered damage due to the defects in the goods supplied by the plaintiff only by the evidence submitted by the defendant, and that the amount of the damage exceeds the amount of the above goods' obligation to pay for the goods.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 30,385,908 won with 6% annual interest rate prescribed by the Commercial Act from December 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019, which is the following day after the delivery of the original copy of the payment order, and 15% annual interest rate prescribed by the former Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) until May 31, 2019; and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow