beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,391,071 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 27, 2014 to September 25, 2015, and the following.
Reasons
1. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the plaintiff traded by continuously supplying alcoholic beverages and industrial products to the defendant and settling the price. The plaintiff finally supplied alcoholic beverages equivalent to the total amount of KRW 2,87,689 to the defendant around September 26, 2014, and the remainder of the goods price at that time can be recognized as constituting 35,326,726, and the plaintiff obtained the return of alcoholic beverages and industrial products equivalent to the total amount of KRW 3,935,655 from the defendant on January 2, 2015.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the goods price of KRW 31,391,071 (i.e., KRW 35,326,726 - KRW 3,935,655), as requested by the Plaintiff, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 27, 2014, which is the sentencing date of the instant case, to September 25, 2015, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion: (a) on July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff did not supply the Defendant with 330 macks, etc. 330 macks, etc.; (b) on July 30, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 5,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s business employees; (c) on July 30, 2014, the Defendant should deduct the difference between the Defendant’s exercise amount of KRW 1,585,087; and (d) on September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff returned goods to the Defendant for the purpose of exchanging 9 macks, and (e) on September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff did not supply goods equivalent to KRW 5,981,985 as indicated in the previous list, and thus, the amount should be deducted from the price of the goods; however, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.