물품대금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 5% per annum from August 17, 2016 to the day of full payment.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 2016, the Plaintiff was ordered to supply clothes (one name: C) 4,000 panty knives (one knives, one 8 panty kives, one knives, and one knives, and two knives (hereinafter “instant products”).
B. The Plaintiff, at the Plaintiff’s expense, delivered raw materials of KRW 97,374,253 purchased from a domestic company to Vietnam (DCO.LTD) designated by the Defendant around July 2016.
C. On August 17, 2016, the Plaintiff’s actual representative E received e-mail (the e-mail sent by the Defendant to G on August 16, 2016, which was the preceding day, from the G directors affiliated with F, to G [the consignor D, accompanied by the invoice concerning female clothes products in which the consignee is the Plaintiff (COMERCAL INVICE) and packing specifications (PACING LIT).
The e-mail stated “IJ of the New Bank of Korea” at all times as follows: “IJ of the New Bank of Korea is sent to the President of the H of the attached file:
On August 17, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000 to the above account of I (the Defendant’s wife).
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3-1, 2, 4, 5-1 through 7, Gap evidence 6 through 10, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Gap evidence 12 through 14, Gap evidence 16, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) liability for damages and the duty to restore the termination of the contract with the Defendant through G entered into a contract with the Defendant, using the above raw materials delivered by the Plaintiff, under which the Defendant manufactured the instant products at D plant and sent them to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant manufacture and supply contract”), and the Defendant did not send the instant products to the Plaintiff even though it manufactured the instant products.
If the plaintiff transfers part of the price of this case to E and the defendant when the defendant returned to Korea on August 2016, it can be confirmed whether or not the plaintiff was defective.