beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 48,191,980 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 2, 2016 to June 1, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the wholesale and retail business of automobile parts, and the corporation B (hereinafter “B”) is a corporation that runs the automobile repair business and the used cars sales business, etc., and the Defendant is a private entrepreneur who runs the used cars sales business under the trade name of C.
B. The Plaintiff traded automobile parts with B from around 2004 to August 2015. From September 2015 to January 2016, the Plaintiff traded automobile parts with the Defendant, a partner of B, who was the representative D.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. From September 2015 to January 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the automobile parts equivalent to KRW 128,191,980 in total, and around September 2015, the Plaintiff exported the automobile parts equivalent to KRW 12,874,950 at the Defendant’s request.
Since the defendant does not pay 61,066,930 won, excluding 80,000,000 won out of 141,06,930 won for the goods arising from the above transaction, it is obligated to pay it.
B. The Defendant paid 126,00,000 won out of 128,191,980 won as a direct transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Since the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Russia company is not a transaction between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the price, and thus, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.
3. Determination
A. The part of dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the claim for the payment of parts is as follows: ① paid to the Plaintiff under the name of E, which was KRW 16,00,000,000, and ②
9. 10,00,000 won for 17.10,000 won for 3.2.10,000,000 won for 46,00,000 won for 4.8.5,00,000 won for 10.8.5,000,000 won for 10.12.5,000,000 won for 10.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 10 through 14, and Eul evidence No. 1, the evidence submitted by the defendant is alone: