beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The status of the party (1) The Plaintiff is a person engaged in manufacturing and wholesale and retailing clothes under the trade name of “C”.
(2) The Defendant is a person who has been awarded a subcontract for the self-denunciation of clothes (Titts) and the processing of flives from the Plaintiff.
(3) On October 6, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of USD 64,786 for the processing price (hereinafter “prior lawsuit”).
B. On October 18, 2012, the court of first instance (this Court Decision 201Da361054) rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay “US 64,786 dollars and the amount calculated by the rate of 6% per annum from June 23, 2011 to October 18, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”
(2) On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) KRW 77,973,109 with the provisional payment of the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter “instant provisional payment”); (b) and (c) the base ratio of the trade of the U.S. dollars as of November 30, 2012 to the Defendant was KRW 1,082.5; (d) upon converting the judgment of the first instance into Korean currency, KRW 7,351,438 [i.e., the principal amount was KRW 70,130,845 (= USD 64,786 + USD 1,082.5%) x 1,08,196 won from June 23, 2011 to October 18, 2012 x KRW 30,568,130,845 won x 483/65 days x 15,2015 x 136.35 days from x 136.25 days.20
A. The payment was made.
(3) On January 9, 2014, the court of appeal of the preceding lawsuit (this Court 2012Na52266) ordered payment of USD 54,843 in excess of the Plaintiff’s appeal and the amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from June 23, 2011 to January 9, 2014, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and sentenced the Defendant’s appeal corresponding to that portion.
The plaintiff and the defendant did not appeal against this judgment on February 4, 2014.