beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 80,516,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from August 27, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 7-1 through 8, Eul evidence 7-1-7, and the overall purport of Eul's testimony and arguments, Eul engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as trade, mixed and incomplete fees, etc., with the trade name "E" in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 204. The defendant engaged in a wholesale and retail business, etc., under the trade name "G" from Ansan-si, Ansan-si, the defendant supplied goods to the defendant from around 2005 to April 2012; Eul did not receive KRW 80,516,000 for goods; Eul transferred the above goods payment claim against the defendant to the plaintiff on July 23, 2014; and Eul notified the defendant on the same date; and the defendant received the above notice at that time.
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 80,516,000 for the goods and delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 27, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.
2. The defendant's defense asserts that the defendant paid all the price of the goods to the bank account of H, which had been an employee of C.
Comprehensively taking account of the statements in Eul 4 and 7 evidence and the witness Eul's testimony, H is an employee of Eul, who is in charge of goods transaction with the defendant while working in Eul. The defendant supplied goods from C, paid the goods to H's bank account using the defendant's husband's bank account, and H trades by depositing the goods into C's account again, and the defendant transferred money of 200 million won or more to H through the I's bank account from April 2012 to June 2012 after the completion of the transaction with C.
However, according to the witness H’s testimony, even after the transaction between C and the Defendant is terminated, H continues to engage in monetary transactions with the Defendant or I in the name of “J”.