물품대금
1. The defendant shall pay 25,380,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from July 11, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 2, 2012, the Defendant awarded a contract with the Plaintiff for the production of 1,00 goods of Doro (200g per unit; hereinafter “instant product”) which entered into force, but did not set the unit price of the product, although the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply the product.
B. On November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a quotation of KRW 28,00,000 for each unit of the instant product to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff sent a quotation of KRW 25,380 to the Defendant’s demand that the unit price be lowered.
C. On November 22, 2012, the Defendant received 100 finished products of this case from the Plaintiff.
Since then, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to receive 900 instant products remaining over several times until then, but on March 13, 2013, when the Defendant delayed the receipt of the instant products, the Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff to reach an agreement on the price again because the unit price was at 7 to 8 times compared with the other company.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. On November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a written estimate with the unit price of KRW 25,380 to the Defendant, and as seen earlier, the Defendant received 100 out of 1,00 products of this case on November 22, 2012. Since there is no counter-proof to deem that the Defendant raised an objection to the unit price at that time, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant reached an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on November 22, 2012 with the unit price of the instant product of KRW 25,380.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 25,380,000 (=25,380 won x 1,000) for the 1,00 goods of this case.
As to this, the Defendant simultaneously made a simultaneous performance defense to the effect that the Plaintiff did not receive 900 products of this case from the Plaintiff. However, since November 22, 2012, the Plaintiff did not accept 90 products of this case.