beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 68,908,574 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from October 1, 2018 to July 2, 2019.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, in fact, supplied the electric panel equivalent to KRW 165,862,620 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant (C) from January 2017 to June 2018.
Although the defendant agreed to pay the price of the above goods within three months from the delivery date, the defendant paid the price of the above goods in KRW 98,954,046 and did not pay the remainder of KRW 68,908,574.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 16, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 68,908,574 of the unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from October 1, 2018 to July 2, 2019, which is the day following the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint 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 day of full payment.
As to this, the Defendant asserts that C’s actual operator, as D, was the Defendant’s captain, and he operated E at the same place after the closure of C, paid three times the Defendant’s existing goods payment obligations to the Plaintiff, and recognized the payment obligations, thereby discharging the Defendant’s above obligations from E.
However, it is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the party that is indicated in the assumption of the obligation, and the burden of proving that there are special circumstances that should be viewed as the assumption of the obligation, and that there is the burden of proving that there is a special circumstance to be considered as the assumption of the obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da30596, Sept. 24, 2015). The above circumstance of the defendant's assertion is insufficient to recognize that the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff against the plaintiff was exempted from the obligation, and it is different from that of the defendant.