beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 47,05,400 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from September 5, 2019 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff operates a wholesale retail business with the trade name called C, and the Defendant operates a wholesale wholesale business with the trade name called D.
B. The Defendant supplied eggs to the Plaintiff at the E farm located in Chungcheongbuk-gun, and supplied the eggs to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff supplied eggs from July 1, 2019 to July 29, 2019 by the Defendant on six occasions, and supplied eggs to the Plaintiff’s customer, such as Fmat, Gmat, Hmat, Iboard, and Jmat.
C. However, the Plaintiff’s limit of KRW 44,306,40 delivered was returned due to the said transaction partner’s shouldering, mycoin generation, scoding marking, corruption, etc.
In addition, the Plaintiff spent 2,749,000 won for the destruction of the returned eggs.
In the above boxes, the producer's identification number marks "K, L, M, and N" are indicated, or some of the columns are omitted, and the producer's identification number is indicated only as "O".
However, “P” is a R farm in Qacheon-gun, Cheongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and “S” is a U farm in Qacheon-gun, Cheongcheon-do.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video (including paper numbers) of Gap evidence 1 to 20, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the damage was caused to the Plaintiff due to the defect in the quality of the column supplied by the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to 47,05,400 won (i.e., the returned amount of KRW 44,306,400), and the damages for delay of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 5, 2019 to the date of full payment, after the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to recognize that the disturbance that was discarded upon return by the Plaintiff was the disturbance supplied by the Defendant, and it appears that there was an error in the Plaintiff’s custody, and Article 69 of the Commercial Act.