물품대금
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures electricity, electronic, and machinery products and wholesale and retail business, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures sports equipment and wholesale and retail business.
B. From March 2016, the Defendant, from the Plaintiff’s day to the Plaintiff, produced bitboards by purchasing bitboards from the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff and the defendant have traded the price of the server supplied in the relevant month by issuing a bill with the maturity of 45 days from the 15th of the following month.
(c)
The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with 139,000 won per opening (excluding value added tax) on November 14, 2017 and 120 on November 25, 2017.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, and the purport before oral argument
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 220 U.S. (33,638,000 won =30,580,000 + value-added 3,058,00 won + 220 won + value-added 3,058,00 won) and delayed damages.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the price reduction based on the warranty liability should be reduced from the price of the goods to be received by the Plaintiff, which should be discarded due to the impossibility of repair among the abandoned goods supplied by the Plaintiff.
(2) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, B’s evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 14, and Eul’s testimony and pleading, the plaintiff sent a report to the defendant that the plaintiff may be defective in the sum of 207 human resources produced and supplied on Sept. 27, 2017 and Oct. 11, 2017, around November 2018. The defendant requested the plaintiff to resolve the above bad human resources before the plaintiff on Jan. 2018, and the defendant failed to repair the server that occurred.
The fact that it stated that the damages caused by the failure to respond to the supply and the non-performance shall be claimed.