손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the following part ordering payment.
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is a company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling fire-fighting machinery and appliances, and the defendant is a company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling facilities related to petroleum chemical equipment, energy equipment, and power generation and distribution.
On April 13, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of each of the instant goods with the Defendant (the trade name at the time was “B Co., Ltd.” and the trade name was changed to “A”) on July 1, 2013, and with respect to the goods required for “E”, the contract amount of KRW 639,254,264 (i.e., Fire Exer Equi management 29,893,522 won (i.e., Fire Exer Equi management 515,497,401 won) and the goods supply contract was concluded on September 22, 2012.
On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of Fire Equi Management KRW 1,278,508,528 [Fire Creative Equi Management KRW 59,787,04 (=F 29,893,52 KRW G 29,893,522)] Fire Equi Management KRW 1,030,94,802 [F 515,497,401 KRW 515,497,401 G 515,497,401 KRW 515,726,682 (“F93,863,841 G 93,93,863,463,41)] on the supply of goods as the payment period fixed by the Plaintiff
[2] Each of the goods supply contracts described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the same Article refers to “each of the goods supply contracts of this case.” The Plaintiff’s production of goods, the Defendant’s refusal to receive each of the goods supply contracts of this case, and the Plaintiff manufactured the goods as follows (hereinafter “the inventory goods of this case”). However, the Defendant refused to receive them and kept them until now.
6 POS-ININD ATR GuTR GETV/V 8" 9 POS-IND M/V 9 POS-10 " 6 POS-IND ATR GTR GET V/V 14" 57 GGAE V/V 14" 57 GTS 6 DITITRAL SCE SCETR SCETR SCEAL 6 DUTUT MET MET M/V/V 4" 24 "DIT BUT BUTUT MTS FYY V/V 5" 57 DITTO BUT MTSLV/V/V 6" was terminated on January 13, 2016, each of the instant goods supply contracts in this case was terminated on the date of the closing of the argument in the first instance trial.
It is true that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 6, .