청구이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The Plaintiff supplied boiler and materials from the Defendant until November 16, 2011. The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff under Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hu50188, and applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of the said goods on March 12, 2013. “The Plaintiff was issued an order to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 10,505,101 to the Defendant from December 30, 201 to the payment order, 6% per annum, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and the said payment order became final and conclusive around that time.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff supplied the boiler to the Plaintiff at a higher unit price than the supply price of other companies in the supply of the boiler to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant also agreed not to claim the payment of the unpaid goods, in violation of this part, even though the Defendant acknowledged this portion and agreed not to claim the payment of the unpaid goods, and the Plaintiff’s belief of the above agreement was not an objection thereto. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that compulsory execution based on the above payment order should not be denied. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s exemption agreement, and the Plaintiff’
B. The plaintiff again claims for the payment order of this case are the price of goods claimed by the defendant at an unreasonably high price, and the plaintiff has a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the same amount against the defendant. Thus, if the above claims are offset against the defendant's claim for the price of goods based on the payment order of this case, since all of the above claims for the price of goods were extinguished, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be denied. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant gains profits equivalent to the above price of goods without legal grounds and suffered losses from the plaintiff.