beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 114,781,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from April 1, 2016 to June 25, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in wholesale and retail business such as medical appliances, etc. under the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a person who operates an agency, such as medical appliances, in the trade name
B. The Plaintiff supplied a medical device, etc. to the Defendant from February 2, 2015 to March 2016, but did not receive KRW 114,781,00 out of the price.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 114,781,00 for the medical device unpaid to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from April 1, 2016 to June 25, 2018, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, as the Plaintiff seeks, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was supplied with medical devices, etc. from E, and that there was no transaction with the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s operation. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, namely, the Defendant’s transfer of the price of the medical devices, etc. supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s bank account; the Defendant’s electronic tax invoice was issued as the supplier’s “Plaintiff”, the recipient of the medical devices, etc.; and the Defendant’s submission of a confirmation document confirming that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is the obligee of the payment for the medical devices, etc. supplied by
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
After the closure of the pleadings in this case, the defendant applied for the resumption of pleadings and deposited KRW 114,781,00,000 for the provisional seizure of the unpaid medical devices, etc., so the plaintiff's claim can no longer be maintained.