물품대금
1. The appeal against the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as stipulated in the following Paragraph 2 to the matters for which the defendant asserts again in the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on addition
A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant entered into a supply contract of ready-mixed products (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff around April 2016, the Defendant agreed to the effect that “the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff the price corresponding to the standardized ready-mixed products, so the Plaintiff should produce and supply the products using the standardized ready-mixed materials,” and that this stipulated in the contract around January 2017.
However, the Plaintiff, from July 2016 to December 2, 2016, produced and supplied products using equipment ready-mixeds, which are not fixed containers, to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 19,032,660, which is the difference between the fixed goods and ready-mixed products, by demanding the Defendant to pay for the price corresponding to the fixed goods ready-mixed products.
Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to return the above money to the defendant.
B. If it is deemed that the agreement as alleged by the Defendant was included in the contract of this case, the Plaintiff’s receipt of the price for the products manufactured by the Defendant is based on the claim for payment of the price under the contract of this case. As long as the contract of this case remains effective without cancelling or cancelling the contract of this case, the mere fact that the Plaintiff supplied the products produced by using the products manufactured by the products manufactured by the products manufactured by the equipment cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment without any legal ground.
However, the defendant asserts that there is a defect in the use of ready-mixed with the equipment supplied by the plaintiff, which is not a container for the goods supplied by the plaintiff, and Articles 68 and 670 of the Civil Act are applied.