임가공비용
1. The Defendant’s KRW 1.5 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 6% per annum from September 13, 2016 to November 25, 2016.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells bags with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells bags.
B. Around September 7, 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to process 620 handbags. The processing cost was set at KRW 25,000 per dog.
The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to perform the 1,000 processing process, and the Handbag’s inspection date was October 10, 2015, and the final inspection date was October 14, 2015.
C. On December 22, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, all the arguments
2. Assertion and determination
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was requested by the Defendant to provide 11 staff members of the Handbags and 1,620 handbags. The Plaintiff’s assertion was supplied more late than the agreed date ( September 7, 2015).
In the absence of material supply, the damages incurred by the Plaintiff by paying wages to the human father are more than KRW 10 million.
Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,50,000,000,000 for the damages related to the above wage, KRW 15,550,000,00 for the processing cost, KRW 3,000,000 for the pregnant processing cost, and KRW 28,55,000,000, which was paid at KRW 28,000 for the above wage, and the damages for delay.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the dispute occurred in the course of demanding the payment of the cost for the processing prior to the examination of the product, and as the Plaintiff did not deliver the handbag to the Defendant, it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.
B. (1) The judgment on the cause of the claim was made (1) that the plaintiff agreed to the cost of processing the handbags per 25,000 won for the handbags per Handbags. The above facts are as follows: there is no dispute between the parties; Gap evidence No. 1-4; Gap evidence No. 18; Gap evidence No. 12; and Gap evidence No. 13; and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff's 620 handbags.