beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 23,30,000 per annum from March 1, 2014 to May 19, 2015, and from the next day.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the production and supply of the interior equipment to be used in Mongolian stores in KRW 23,00,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the supply to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid 2,000,000 won to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 23,300,000 won for the remaining price of delivered goods (i.e., value added tax 25,30,000 won - down payment 2,00,000 won) and 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from March 1, 2014 to May 19, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
However, the Plaintiff also claimed 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint in this case. However, since the statutory interest rate is set at 15% per annum from the provision on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015; October 1, 2015), the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for damages for delay calculated at the rate exceeding 15% per annum after October 1, 2015 is without merit.
3. The defendant's assertion is the actual party to the contract of this case. The plaintiff requested the issuance of the surety insurance policy in order to guarantee the payment of the goods to B while entering into the contract of this case. However, Eul failed to issue the above securities, and thus Eul requested the defendant to prepare the contract of this case in the name of the defendant so that the above securities can be issued, and merely lent the name of the defendant.