물품대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The facts of recognition (1) The Plaintiff is a person who engages in metal cutting processing, etc. with the trade name of “C,” the Defendant is a person who engages in construction subcontracting business with the trade name of “D,” and (2) the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff in relation to the construction project awarded by the Defendant E to install a ice lease plate necessary for the installation of the gate. The Plaintiff processed the relevant goods and delivered the relevant goods to the Defendant from January 30, 2016 to October 29, 2016. The fact that the Defendant did not pay an amount equivalent to KRW 11,20,180 out of the price to the present day does not conflict between the parties, or that the Defendant did not pay an amount equivalent to KRW 11,20,180, out of the price to the present day by adding the entire purport
2. The grounds for the court’s explanation as to this part of the argument and judgment are as follows, with the exception that the part of the specifications (Evidence No. 1) prepared at the time of the contract of this case is modified as follows: Provided, That the defendant's order to the plaintiff is the same below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In light of the application of fingerprint prevention films to the goods supplied by the Plaintiff, although it appears that the Defendant’s oral request was made for the application of fingerprint prevention films, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was the Defendant’s specific instruction on the applicable location. Even if the Defendant’s assertion, there is a precedent that the Plaintiff completed the supply of fingerprint prevention films by applying fingerprint prevention films to the central level at another construction site ordered by E, a corporation
In full view of the fact that it is difficult to presume that the work instruction of the same content was given even at the construction site of this case, it is recognized that the Defendant, at the time of the instant contract, instructed the Plaintiff to work with the content of the Defendant’s assertion.