beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 5,631,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from November 1, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with goods, such as a ridge tester from around 2009 to March 2014, and did not receive KRW 55,631,00 for goods. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the price for the above goods and delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant defense that the above defect repair cost should be deducted from the price of the above goods, since there was a defect in the oil pressure test equipment (100 tons) and the nitroke test equipment supplied by the plaintiff on March 11, 2014. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize the above defect repair cost only with the statement of No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.
B. In addition, the defendant's defense to the effect that the plaintiff deducteds KRW 13,580,000, more than the amount of KRW 7,580,000 as the plaintiff's owner on May 1, 2013 because the defendant's failure to receive the price of goods from C, and thus, the above difference should be deducted from the amount of the above goods, so it is insufficient to acknowledge the above only by the statement of the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.
3. If so, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,631,00 for the goods price of KRW 55,631,00 and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 1, 2014 to the day of full payment, following the day after the copy of the application for the alteration of claim and the purport of the claim in this case was served on the defendant on October 27, 2014. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.