물품대금
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 20,504,275 as well as to the plaintiff on April 2014.
. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Although the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing the aggregate sheet, supplied the aggregate sheet to the Defendant from October 201 to October 2013, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 19,653,876 from the Defendant, but did not receive KRW 3,167,830 from the Defendant. However, the fact that the Plaintiff, who was engaged in the business of manufacturing the aggregate sheet, supplied the aggregate sheet to the Defendant without receiving KRW 19,653,87,830, did not conflict between the parties, or that it was recognized by the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4.
B. On September 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that around September 2013, SK.3S.B 1915*750 Gamb 2,850 Gamb 1935*950 Gamb 1935*950 Gamb, SK.K 1320*1350 Gamb 1,700 Gamb 1320*1350 Gamb 1,700 (total original unit price 5,689,530) were each supplied to the Defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.
Rather, around September 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to process the pelpel paper as gambling instead of requesting only the pel paper to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff provided only the pel paper to the Defendant without conducting the pel paper processing, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
C. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,821,706, including KRW 19,653,876, and KRW 3,167,830, and delay damages therefrom.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that since the judgment of the plaintiff's assertion of unfair trade practices causes damage to the defendant by deceiving the defendant who did not confirm the details of transactions properly, and excessively unrefilled the original price of the aggregate sheet, the amount of damage caused by the above illegal acts should be offset against the plaintiff's claim amount.
The testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff deceivings the defendant with regard to the unit price of the frame team, and it is possible to recognize it differently.