logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.07.03 2015가단100501
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,421,075 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 25, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in wholesale and retail business of construction materials, steel product sales business, etc., and the Defendant is a juristic person engaged in civil construction business, construction business, etc.

B. The Plaintiff supplied steel to the Defendant from June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014. The amount of goods not paid by the Defendant as of October 31, 2014 is KRW 40,579,566 in total.

C. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the claim amounting to KRW 15,158,491, which was part of KRW 40,579,566, among the above claim amounting to the Defendant against Ilsung Construction Co., Ltd., and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on November 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25,421,075 won (i.e., 40,579,566 won - 15,158,491 won) remaining after the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order from December 25, 2014 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, from the date following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order to the date of full payment.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff transferred the above claim for the price of goods to Ilsung Construction Co., Ltd., the original contractor, and received the above price of goods by subrogation from Ilsung Construction Co., Ltd. However, in this case, the plaintiff's claim for payment against the defendant in this case is 25,421,075 won, excluding the amount of 15,158,491 won transferred to Ilsung Construction Co., Ltd. among the total price of the unpaid goods, so the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow