logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.10.16 2020가단10379
물품대금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 32,198,900 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from August 10, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in wholesale and retail business of livestock products, etc., supplied the Defendant, who runs food business under the trade name of “D”, with the equipment equivalent to KRW 347,318,90,00 in total, from December 1, 2017 to June 13, 2020.

The Defendant paid only KRW 315,120,00 on the payment of the fixed amount, such as Korea-Japan, and did not pay the remaining KRW 32,198,90 on the payment of the fixed amount.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 32,198,90 won with unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from August 10, 2020 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff, after the last day of the supply of goods.

I would like to say.

2. As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation, and the plaintiff asserted to the effect that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since he/she received repayment through the individual rehabilitation procedure.

On August 18, 2020, the defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation with Gwangju District Court 2020 Ma515282 on August 18, 2020, and reported the plaintiff as rehabilitation creditors to this court. However, prior to the confirmation of the plaintiff as rehabilitation claims in the individual rehabilitation procedure, the lawsuit that had already been filed is not affected by the individual rehabilitation procedure, and even if the judgment of this case is finalized, there is no disadvantage in the defendant in preparing a decision to commence the individual rehabilitation procedure or a draft repayment plan in the individual rehabilitation procedure and obtaining authorization (at the same time, there is no evidence to prove that there was a decision to commence the individual rehabilitation procedure in the individual rehabilitation procedure against the defendant). The argument to the same purport

arrow