beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 34,151,664 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 12, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in wholesale and retail business, etc. with the trade name of B, and the Defendant is a company with the purpose of manufacturing steel structures.
B. The Plaintiff supplied iron plates, etc. to the Defendant from October 2015 to December 23, 2016. The Plaintiff was not paid KRW 34,151,664 out of the amount of the goods.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 34,151,664, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 12, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order sought by the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant’s assertion and its determination 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion are the goods worth KRW 10,010,000 (hereinafter “the instant goods”) around May 25, 2016.
B The plaintiff supplied the goods, but the goods price of this case should be deducted from 10,010,000, out of the goods price claimed by the plaintiff, since the plaintiff voluntarily supplied the goods even though the defendant did not place an order.
The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 5 and 6’s overall purport, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant engaged in the transaction of supplying goods from October 2015. When the Plaintiff supplied the goods, it was confirmed by the employee in charge of the Defendant and signed on the column of the transferee of the transaction specification to the effect that the goods were supplied. ② The Plaintiff supplied the goods of this case around May 25, 2016. Even if it was confirmed by the Defendant’s employee, the Defendant did not at all assert that the goods of this case were supplied at will until the lawsuit seeking the payment of the goods of this case is filed.