물품대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following shall be revoked.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the same Article. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The reasoning of the court's statement on this part is that the defendant paid KRW 5,00,00 to the plaintiff on April 25, 2008, which was after the completion of the supply of goods, the defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 to the plaintiff on April 25, 2008. Thus, the defendant's assertion that "the above defense is well-grounded," although the defendant argued that he additionally paid KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff on April 25, 2008, the defendant paid KRW 12,13,18, 18, 1, and 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and that the defendant paid KRW 5,00 to the plaintiff on November 5, 2007 after deducting KRW 10,000,000,000 from the plaintiff's purchase of goods, the plaintiff's assertion that he paid KRW 5,000 to the plaintiff on April 25, 2008.
Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. The reason why the court should explain this part of the defense is that the amount should be deducted because the defendant returned the goods equivalent to KRW 5,000,000 to the plaintiff on 207. However, each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 3 and 11 is insufficient to recognize that the defendant returned the goods, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the above argument is without merit.