beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,163,642 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from April 30, 2015 to September 30, 2015.
Reasons
1) There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the plaintiff, while engaging in wholesale and retail business with the trade name of "B", may recognize that the plaintiff was not paid KRW 80,163,642 as the price for the goods and supplied the goods to the defendant from April 1, 2014 to April 4, 2015. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the price for the unpaid goods. 2) As to this, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 80,163,642 as the price for the goods, using the fee supplied by the plaintiff, carrying out the painting for the goods loaded on the ship from the Young Mine Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., Ltd., which caused an accident that causes or exceeds the portion of seals caused by the defect of the paint supplied by the plaintiff, which requires deduction of KRW 4197,600.
The result of the fact-finding on Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the fact-finding on the Young-gu Small and Medium Enterprise Co., Ltd. by this court is insufficient to recognize that the above defects alleged by the defendant exist or that the above accident of the defendant's assertion was caused by the defects of the paints supplied by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3) If so, the Defendant: (a) 20% per annum from April 30, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the day following the delivery day of a copy of the complaint sought by the Plaintiff on the goods price of KRW 80,163,642; and (b) 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (amended by the main provision of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; (c) since October 1, 2015, the interest rate under the above Act was changed from 20% per annum to 15% per annum.
Since the plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay calculated as above, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are groundless.