beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.09.08 2015가합33922

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 75,700,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from January 31, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

Reasons

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells the set pumps listed in the separate sheet used in the Kim Construction Factory (hereinafter “instant set pumps”), and the Defendant is a person who operates the Kim Construction Factory in the trade name of “B”.

B. On July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to set up eight of the instant cream pumps (name of product: salking-dried pumps) to be used in the Kim Construction Factory to the Defendant as KRW 45,100,000 per unit (including value-added tax) and supply them to KRW 360,80,000 in total.

(Then, the original and the Defendant changed the terms of the contract to supply total of KRW 315,700,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”). (C)

On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the instant 7 pumps to the Defendant.

The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 240,00,000, in total, KRW 50,000 on July 4, 2013, KRW 150,000 on January 22, 2014, and KRW 40,000 on May 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff completed the manufacturing of the instant cargo pumps pursuant to the instant contract and delivered them to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 75,700,000, which was unpaid, to the Plaintiff as the price for the goods KRW 315,70,000, and the delay damages therefor. (2) The instant cargo pumps did not have any defect, and even if the defect exists, the degree of the defect does not reach the extent that the purpose of the instant contract is not achieved.

Therefore, the defendant cannot rescind the contract of this case.

B. The Defendant’s argument that the pumps of this case do not increase the temperature as much as the temperature set far as they have been set far away from the heating capacity, and there is a defect that the operation of the pumps of this case is suspended when they reached the establishment temperature.

This defect is due to this defect.