beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 57,615,457 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from October 25, 2017 to November 6, 2017.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are corporations engaged in steel products distribution business; the Defendant was supplied by the Plaintiff with the amount equivalent to KRW 92,615,457 on the condition of cash payment as of the end of the month following the end of August 2017; and the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 35 million by October 24, 2017.
Therefore, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, is obligated to pay 57,615,457 won in the balance of the price of the goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from October 25, 2017 to November 6, 2017, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.
B. On September 20, 2017, the Defendant asserted that, although the Plaintiff agreed to supply 70 tons of steel products to the Defendant on or around September 20, 2017, the Defendant delayed the supply of steel products. Accordingly, the Defendant was unable to supply steel products to the Sejong Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Syoung Comprehensive Construction”), thereby receiving a claim for damages from Sejong Comprehensive Construction, the amount of the claim for damages should be deducted from the amount of goods.
However, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff agreed to supply steel products on or around September 20, 2017, as alleged by the Defendant, on the sole basis of each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion on this premise is without merit without need to further examine it.
2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.