beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from September 1, 2017 to January 31, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on aggregate sales (hereinafter “the instant contract”) with the content that the stones, such as clothes, etc. (including KRW 6,000 per 1 cubic metres of gravel 25 meters, KRW 4,500 per 1 cubic metres of gravel 40 meters, KRW 4,300 per 1 cubic metres of stone, KRW 4,300 per 1 cubic metres of auxiliary 1 cubic metres, and KRW 4,300 per 4,30 square metres of auxiliary 1 cubic metres, from the end of each month to be paid by the 15th of the following month after the end of each month.
B. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff supplied stone to the Defendant from August 29, 2016 to May 2017, 2017, but the outstanding amount that was not paid by the Defendant remains 60,000,000 won.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the outstanding amount of KRW 60,000,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 1, 2017 to January 31, 2020, which is the sentencing date of this case, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment, the Defendant claimed that there was a mixture of stone with large 25m stone supplied by the Plaintiff, and that there was no monetary damage equivalent to KRW 30,000,00 as the material was supplied by the customer as it did not receive the stone from the customer, and that there was no monetary loss equivalent to KRW 30,000,000, since the Plaintiff unilaterally suspended production and caused the Defendant to incur operating losses exceeding KRW 100,000,00,000.
Even if all evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers) were examined, it is not sufficient to recognize that there was a defect in the stone supplied by the Plaintiff, and even if it was partially defective.