물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,355,326 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from June 3, 2016 to June 28, 2018, and the next day.
1. Occurrence of an obligation to pay the price;
A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person who carries on a business, such as a book (fixd with a printed material, file with a sign, etc.) in the name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who carries on a correction work after being transferred a duplicate from an enterprise that has received an order for the production of a graduation from each school and then printed it. 2) The Defendant was engaged in a printing work after being transferred a duplicate from the enterprise that has received an order for the production of the graduation of each school, and then subcontracted the production of the original work to a forest processing enterprise that is identical with the Plaintiff, and engages in a transaction in the manner of delivering the graduation and receiving the price from the ordering enterprise.
3) The Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant to the Defendant for the 57th year of 2015 as well as the 57th year of 2015 as well as the delivery thereof to the Defendant around February 2015. (4) The Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant for the 137th year of 2016 as well as the 137th year of 2016 as the 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The fact that the amount of the present price is KRW 12,865,050 (including value-added tax) for the principal who was removed from the year 2015 as well as the year 2015 as the year 2015 as the year 2015 as the year 2015 as the year 200 is no dispute between the parties (the Defendant led to the confession of this fact in the reply dated 8
Since then, on June 26, 2017, the Defendant asserted that the above payment was calculated excessively in the preparatory documents, and even if this assertion was based on the revocation of confession, there is no special evidence to acknowledge that the above confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, the revocation of confession is invalid.
(2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a person who received KRW 5,500,000 ( KRW 1,000,000 on December 1, 2014 + KRW 1,000,000 on January 1, 2015 + + KRW 3,000,000 on April 3, 2015 + KRW 50,000 on July 5, 2015). Therefore, the Defendant’s unpaid payment is KRW 7,365,050 ( KRW 12,865,050-5,500) ( KRW 12,050 on July 5, 2015) and KRW 2016 on April 2, 2016.