물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,662,815 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from September 1, 2016 to December 12, 2016.
1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts are the Plaintiff’s importation, distribution, and sales business of human resource acting in Korea, the Defendant’s management, manufacture, and sales business of human resource acting in Korea, and the Plaintiff’s supply of at least KRW 00 million to the Defendant from around August 23, 2009 to August 23, 2016 is not a dispute between the parties.
On the other hand, the plaintiff was paid from the defendant the remainder, excluding KRW 30,662,815, out of the price of the raw materials for the above personal assistance agency's goods.
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 30,662,815 won due to unpaid goods and damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 1, 2016 to December 12, 2016, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, from September 1, 2016, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and from the following day to the date of full payment.
3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion that because the plaintiff's act of assistance on May 7, 2015 (the name of the goods: the list of the goods) supplied by the plaintiff was defective in color and material quality, the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the non-party Co., Ltd.") which is the defendant's delivery place requested the plaintiff to return the goods to the plaintiff after receiving a decision on the non-performance of materials from the non-party Co., Ltd. ("the non-party Co., Ltd.") which is the defendant's delivery place. The plaintiff at the time
The Defendant demanded return of the difference in color to the artificial stone supplied by the Plaintiff on May 7, 2015 (hereinafter “the first supply portion”). Around May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff newly produced and again supplied the same (hereinafter “the second supply portion”), and the Defendant processed the second supply portion and supplied it to the non-party company. The fact that the non-party company returned the same on the grounds of inferior quality and color.