임가공비 청구의 소
1. The appeal against the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the first to fifth to fifth to fourth to the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to a counterclaim claim, is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this Court
2. Article 7, 14, and 20 of Eul (No. 7 and 15 of Eul (W No. 7 and 15’s letter of undertaking to compensate for damages) of the same part is presumed to be the authenticity of the entire document because there is no dispute between the parties that the part of the name tag affixed on the confirmation column and the seal affixed thereon are based on the Plaintiff’s name tag and seal. In this regard, the Plaintiff is presumed to be the co-defendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the first instance trial, the representative director of the Plaintiff.
() Although the Plaintiff asserts that the document was forged by misappropriation of the Plaintiff’s name and official seal, considering the overall purport of each statement and pleading by the witness E of the Party concerned, it is insufficient to acknowledge it only, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it), the Plaintiff prepared and presented to the Defendant on October 15, 2016 a letter of commitment that “I will deduct the amount of loss caused by delay of payment and loss of raw and secondary materials from the price of supply, confirm cash payment if there is no price of supply, and then I will then offer to pay it in cash if there is no objection to this later (hereinafter “instant letter of commitment”), and the total amount of loss compensation on the above letter of commitment was 31,959,171, and the facts that the Defendant sent the Plaintiff on November 18, 2016 and November 21, 2016 to certify the contents of the loan amount of KRW 31,959,171 and KRW 10,000,000,000.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 5 through 7, 12, 15, and 16 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① even based on the language and text of the instant commitment itself, the Plaintiff’s damage compensation amounting to KRW 31,959,171 due to delay in the payment period and loss of raw and secondary materials.