beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. In light of the determination on the cause of the claim, the fact that the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 8,556,295 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant from May 2, 2013 to February 18, 2014 pursuant to the supply contract that the Plaintiff entered into with the Defendant, can be recognized by the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1, 2-1, and 2, or there is no dispute between the parties.
On the other hand, it appears that there was no specific agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the deadline for the payment of goods, and since the price of goods must be paid at the same time as the delivery of the goods, the date on which the plaintiff supplied the above goods to
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 8,56,295 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15 percent per annum under the Commercial Act from March 1, 2014 to August 17, 2017, which is the date of the ruling of the first instance that the Defendant is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff from March 1, 2014 to the date of full payment, and from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. The defendant's defense of repayment and judgment thereof
A. The defendant's assertion that D, the spouse of the representative director C of the plaintiff's assertion, operates a separate individual enterprise with the trade name "E", and the defendant maintained a continuous transaction relationship with the plaintiff as well as E.
However, the Plaintiff requested that the Plaintiff pay the Plaintiff’s goods payment obligation to the D name account used by E, and the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff’s goods payment obligation to the D name account at the Plaintiff’s request.
B. Determination 1) Inasmuch as the Defendant recognized the fact that he did not repay the instant goods payment obligation to the Plaintiff’s account, the key issue of the instant case is that the Defendant’s account in the name of D (hereinafter “E account”).
The money remitted to the plaintiff is the cause of the repayment of the goods payment obligation to the plaintiff.