임가공대금 청구의 소
The defendant shall pay 36,973,727 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from January 4, 2020 to the day of complete payment.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “C,” engaged in manufacturing business, such as a master form and gold, and the Defendant engaged in manufacturing sales business, such as shower products and furniture, with the trade name of “D.”
B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the processing of products manufactured by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract for the processing of products”).
(c)
According to the instant processing contract, from March 6, 2018 to May 2019 under the instant processing contract, the processing price in total amounts to KRW 102,80,482, and the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 65,826,755 with the processing price for the said period.
【Fact-finding without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion
A. According to the facts acknowledged in the above 1.1. judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the processing price of KRW 36,973,727 under the instant contract, barring special circumstances (i.e., KRW 102,80,482 - KRW 65,826,755) and the delayed damages.
B. The defendant's assertion (1) although the defendant did not consult with the plaintiff about the increase of the unit price for the processing price, he unilaterally applied the unit price raised by the plaintiff and claimed the processing price.
As a result, in full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 6 and 8, the plaintiff sent a statement to the defendant around January 2018, stating that "the unit price per unit shall be increased by 40 won per unit due to personnel expenses and raw materials cost increase," and the plaintiff issued a trade statement in detail to the defendant's employees, including the quantity of the processed products, the increased unit price and the supply price, and the above increased unit price, and obtained signatures from the defendant's employees to the transferee's column, and it appears that the defendant did not raise any objection otherwise prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.