beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company selling Arabic forest, and the Defendant operates retail stores with the trade name of “C”, and is an individual entrepreneur supplied by the Plaintiff with Arabic forest.
B. From around 2011 to 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the ice forest and suspended the transaction. On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff resumed the transaction and supplied the ice forest until April 27, 2017, and subsequently suspended the transaction.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 4,925,294 at a discount of 20% to the Plaintiff on the premise that the price of the goods that the Defendant did not pay after the discontinuance of the last transaction is KRW 6,531,618, on the condition that it would be paid in cash until June 30, 2018. However, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to submit details of transactions, etc. on October 4, 2018, and indicated the intent on the details of the outstanding amount.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In determining the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff claims for the unpaid amount of KRW 6,231,618 and delay damages against the Defendant. Accordingly, according to the purport of the evidence and the entire pleadings as to the unpaid amount of goods, the Plaintiff may recognize that the Defendant’s unpaid amount of goods in the transaction by 2014 is at least KRW 2,286,640.
Although the Defendant asserts that this Court presented the evidence Nos. 15 through 18, and that there was an amount of additional deposit different from the specification of transactions No. 5, it is difficult to recognize that the amount transferred by the Defendant stated as the price of goods paid to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff on June 30, 201 and October 31, 2011, considering the fact that there was no supply details prior to June 201 in the specification of transactions arranged by the Defendant, and there was no amount of unpaid goods as of October 31, 201.
In addition, the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 7 and Eul evidence No. 1 is taken into account.