beta
Text
1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 46,857,564 to the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from August 15, 2014 to September 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On March 12, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a written confirmation to the Defendant that the original parts supplied by the Plaintiff were properly supplied and purchased according to the above specifications and quantity, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant claiming USD 97,77,798,350,000,000,000 from around March 31, 2014, equivalent to USD 86,241,000,000, and USD 13,439,000,000, and USD 60,878.67,000.
3) The Plaintiff is a person who received USD 51,778.35 from the Defendant on June 5, 2014. The exchange rate at the time of the instant lawsuit is equivalent to KRW 101,00 per US$1.20 per 1,018. [The entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows.]
B. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay 46,857,564 won calculated by converting USD 46,020 from USD 108 to USD 1018.20, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 15, 2014 to September 30, 2015 under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment.
The Plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint to the date of full payment. However, the statutory interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Encouragement, etc. of Legal Proceedings is amended by Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which reduces the legal interest rate of 20% per annum to 15% per annum, and it was enforced from October 1, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay exceeding 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 to the date of full payment
2. The Defendant’s defense was an incomplete performance due to a change in the original color of the AO-9652CTR from among the original parts supplied by the Plaintiff around March 2014.