물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,732,781 as well as 6% per annum from April 19, 2014 to December 12, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the cause of the claim is recognized in accordance with the purport of the Plaintiff’s provision of “DTY75/36 K 727 CY 70/68 KA to the Defendant from September 27, 2013 to April 18, 2014, with respect to the supply of the goods of KRW 50,732,781 to the Defendant, or with respect to the payment of the goods of KRW 50,732,781 among the parties, or with respect to the payment of the goods of KRW 1-1 and 2, or with respect to the payment of the goods of KRW 50,732,781 as a whole, and with respect to the above KRW 50,732,781 and its payment of the goods from April 19, 2014 to December 12, 2014, with respect to the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act, and 20% per annum.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. First of all, when the Defendant was unable to timely repay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to pay the original unit price produced by the Defendant to the Plaintiff side and offset the said original unit price from the Plaintiff’s price of the goods. In fact, the Defendant paid the original unit price to the place designated by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant did not have any longer pay the Plaintiff the price of the goods to be paid to the Plaintiff. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to offset only by the evidence submitted by the Defendant, and that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff with the original unit amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s price of the goods. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
B. Next, the defendant asserts that since there were defects in functional technical specifications, letter, and chrosium general specifications among the original specifications supplied by the plaintiff, the above original specifications and the price of each original specifications should be deducted from the price of the plaintiff's goods. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the original specifications in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.
(c)in addition,