임가공료
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the cause of the claim is a corporation which carries out the production of aluminium, and the Defendant is a corporation that carries out the manufacturing business, etc., the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant, if the Plaintiff supplied aluminium products to the Defendant, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff by settling the processing fees at the end of the next month and settling them to the Plaintiff at the end of the next month. Accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the processing fees of KRW 3,485,350 as of May 31, 2018, and the processing fees of KRW 2,139,940 as of June 30, 2018, and the Defendant did not pay the processing fees to the Plaintiff after the payment date of each of the processing fees (on June 30, 2018, July 31, 2018), or upon considering the overall purport of the arguments and the number of the parties to the lawsuit.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,625,290 ( KRW 3,485,350, KRW 2,139,940) and the amount of KRW 3,485,350, whichever is the day following the due date for the payment, to the remainder of KRW 2,139,490, which is the day following the due date for the payment, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 1, 2018 until August 22, 2018, which is clear that the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and damages for delay calculated at each 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the date of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant supplied the above goods from the plaintiff to a company located in Japan as it is, and was notified by the Japanese company that the goods were defective and the whole quantity of the goods was returned. The plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case is improper since the defective goods were supplied to the defendant.
The written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a defect in the goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.