logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.07.10 2019가단2346
물품대금 등
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 31,239,831 as well as 12% per annum from March 5, 2019 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff supplied livestock feed to the Defendant from around 2003 to December 11, 2018, and the Defendant continued to pay the price for the goods during the trading period, and paid the Plaintiff the final amount of KRW 1,856,720 on November 23, 2018, and the fact that the total amount of the unpaid goods was 31,239,831 on the basis of the fact that the parties did not dispute or that the total amount of the unpaid goods was 31,239,831 on the grounds of the entire pleadings can be acknowledged based on each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 6, and subparagraphs 1 through 2.

According to this, the defendant is obligated to pay 31,239,831 won for the remaining goods and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the Defendant, first of all, defenses that the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods, which occurred on or before January 9, 2019 that the Plaintiff urged payment of the price has expired, and thus, in a case where several credit relations for the same kind of goods have been established due to continuous transactions between the same parties, even if the obligor did not designate a specific obligation and performs part of the obligation, barring any special circumstances, the interruption of prescription or renunciation of the obligation can be recognized by deeming that the remaining obligation has been approved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da64793, Jan. 23, 2014; 93Da14936, Oct. 26, 1993). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods was applied for a short-term period of three years pursuant to Article 163 of the Civil Act as consideration for products and goods sold by the producer and merchant, but the Defendant continued to pay the entire purchase price of goods to the Plaintiff by no later than December 13,

arrow