가공비 정산금지급 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
(a) the D Limited Corporation is a company established under the People's Republic of China's Republic of China Act, which is its main business to manufacture and sell electronic parts, optical electronic products, etc.;
B. Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a company established for the purpose of the manufacture and sale of electricity, electronic parts, and Defendant C is a company established for the purpose of the manufacture and sale of electric and electronic parts. According to the entry of Defendant B’s entire certificate of the matters registered as a corporation from March 31, 2014, Defendant C is registered as the representative director of Defendant B even before March 31, 2014 (Provided, That the first appointment date is not clear), and on March 31, 2014, it is registered as a representative director again after resignation.
A person who serves as the representative director of Defendant B.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and Defendant C, the representative director of Defendant B, appear to mean the weak of SMT Surface Mology, and appears to mean the surface chief technology (the function of having semiconductors, multiple chips, etc. on the printing circuit board as a multiple equipment and lightizing them). Two kinds of equipment were installed and processed, and the processing cost was paid within 60 days.
At the time of the conclusion of the above contract, Defendant C was the same company as Defendant B and E Limited Corporation, and it was the representative director of two companies, and Defendant B processed the products of Defendant F Co., Ltd., thereby expanding its business to China.
B. On December 25, 2014, the Plaintiff installed two SMTRa and two inspection equipment, and started processing production with 40 employees.
However, it is difficult for Defendant C to pay the processing cost to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2014. The processing cost not thereafter paid is the sum of KRW 370,457.61 on December 2, 2014, and KRW 419,258.92 on January 2, 2015, KRW 1,383,605.10 on February 2, 2015, and KRW 1,003,701.43, and KRW 742,462.26 on April 26, 2015.