beta
Text
1. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s KRW 33,660,00 and the annual rate of KRW 20% from April 21, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
In full view of the statements in Gap 1 and 2, it is recognized that the plaintiff issued a tax invoice from the defendant who operates "C" of office equipment wholesale and retail business operator on November 28, 2012 to supply 36,00,000 won for the digital reproduction machine to 36,00,000 won (excluding value-added tax). On November 29, 2012, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted 39,60,000 won to the defendant's account under the name of the defendant.
The Plaintiff asserts that, through the Defendant’s business operator S. D, the Plaintiff was obligated to purchase 20 copies of the reproduction machine from the Defendant, and that the payment was made on March 19, 2013, only three copies of the reproduction machine was supplied on and after March 19, 2013. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder of the purchase price as the seller, and at least to return the amount equivalent to the above amount as unjust enrichment.
In regard to this, the defendant, at the request of the plaintiff's agent, introduced the plaintiff to purchase the reproduction machine from Thaiia, and received the price, 27,000,000 won, and paid it by the credit card to Thaiia S., and the remaining payment was deposited into D's account. Thus, the defendant alleged that the seller is not the seller and the amount of the purchase was not unjust.
Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in B 1 and 2, the fact that the Defendant, on November 29, 2012, remitted KRW 14,312,360 to D’s account on the same day as the fact that he/she paid the sum of KRW 27,00,000 by credit card to Thai S.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant issued a tax invoice on the said twenty copies, and received the sales amount directly from the Plaintiff, and that the amount paid by the credit card to Thai E was the price for the above copy machine and the said copy was actually supplied in full (in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the witness E’s testimony, it is peeped in the circumstances where it was appropriated to pay the Defendant’s existing claim against the Defendant), and that the amount remitted to D’s account was returned to the Plaintiff.
or D shall receive it on behalf of the plaintiff.