물품대금
1. The appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim filed in the trial are dismissed, respectively.
2. Costs of appeal and counterclaim;
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the wholesale and retail business of cosmetics, and the Defendant is a personal entrepreneur who runs the wholesale and retail business of cosmetics in the name of "B" in Gwangju City D.
B. The Plaintiff supplied cosmetics, etc. to the Defendant from July 2010 to May 13, 2013. The Defendant did not pay KRW 92,335,789 out of the price of the goods to the Plaintiff and returned some of the goods to the Plaintiff on April 29, 2013.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant return”). C.
On the other hand, around April 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the transfer of the Plaintiff’s brand “ODBRY” and the Plaintiff’s goodwill.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 5, Gap 6's evidence 1-1 to 10-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the principal claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 14,538,928, which the Plaintiff deducted from the amount of KRW 92,335,789, the Plaintiff deducted from the amount of KRW 14,538,928, the Plaintiff deducted from the amount of KRW 92,535,789 (=92,335,789-14,538,928), and delay damages therefrom, barring special circumstances.
3. Judgment on the defendant's defense and counterclaim
A. 1) The Defendant agreed to deduct KRW 19,016,836 from the price of the instant goods at the time of the instant return. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount of KRW 4,477,908 (=19,016,836 won-14,538,928) should be additionally deducted from the price of the instant goods claimed by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that part of the instant return was already used by the Defendant for the customer’s test, and thus, it cannot be allowed to return the said goods. 2) In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence No. 9 and No. 1, the Plaintiff’s employee C included a considerable number of products already used as a master at the time of receiving the instant return from the Defendant on April 29, 2013.