beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,101,224 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 24, 2013 to April 28, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures various products or processes clinical parts with the trade name of “B,” and the Defendant is a corporation that engages in metal scrap manufacturing and trade business.
B. Around July 2012, the Defendant: (a) requested the Plaintiff to process scrap materials necessary for the export of automobiles and their parts; and (b) agreed that the Defendant would purchase the steel plates to process and deliver the scrap plates to the Plaintiff; and (c) the Defendant would pay the processed fees to the Plaintiff.
C. From August 2012, the Plaintiff started to process soar and deliver it to the Defendant.
As of October 4, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled that the Defendant’s price for supply was 8,806,878 due to the failure of the parts supplied by the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant deducted KRW 6,469,945 that the Defendant paid as the price for parts from the amount of the said amount due to the defect of the parts supplied by the Plaintiff.
E. Since then, according to the Defendant’s order, the Plaintiff additionally supplied KRW 2,764,291 in total, including KRW 1,105,050 on December 1, 2012 and KRW 1,360,00 on December 26, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a tentative number), witness C's testimony, purport of 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 5,101,224 ( = 8,806,878 won - 6,469,945 won - 2,764,291 won) of the price of supplied goods unpaid to the plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from May 24, 2013 to April 28, 2015, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, until the day of this decision, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
3. Thus, 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.