beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,119,478 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from September 29, 2016 to May 17, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, under the name of D, supplied livestock products to the Defendant operating a hotel E from January 18, 2013 to September 28, 2016, and supplied bread to the Defendant on behalf of F from May 2, 2014 to June 26, 2014.
B. The Defendant continued to pay the price for the goods during the trading period, and the total amount of the price for the goods currently unpaid is KRW 54,119,478.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 13 (including paper numbers), witness F’s testimony, witness G’s partial testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each statutory rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 29, 2016 to May 17, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that ① the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of KRW 4,477,894 from May 11, 2017 to May 7, 2014, which was the date of the instant lawsuit from May 11, 2017, among the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of the goods, the extinctive prescription has expired; ② KRW 2,089,250 out of the remainder of the price of the goods has expired as repayment; ② even if not, ③ even if not, the Plaintiff’s claim for excessive demand due to the application of excessive unit price of supply; ③ KRW 16,038,136 of the claimed amount; and KRW 390,000 of the Korea-Japan High Court’s claim that the Plaintiff supplied twice on May 7, 2014, which was the date of the instant lawsuit.
Where several claims relations with the same kind are established through a continuous transaction between the same parties, even if an obligor has performed a part of the obligations without designating a specific obligation, the remaining obligation shall also be deemed to have been approved unless any special circumstances exist, and thus, interruption or renunciation of prescription shall be effective.