beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.24 2016나68740

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is set forth in paragraph (1).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in steel manufacturing, processing, and selling steel, and the Defendant is a juristic person engaged in the wholesale and retail of steel products.

B. From around November 30, 2013 to November 30, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied steel products to the Defendant. In the process, the Plaintiff settled steel products on a monthly basis with the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff continued to supply steel to the Defendant from around November 2013 to around November 2014, and did not receive KRW 112,530,352 of the steel supply price. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the steel supply paid to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom. (ii) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant supplied the Defendant with steel of KRW 317,268,160, to the period from July 1, 2014 to July 31, 2014, the Defendant unilaterally increased the unit price of the steel supply and issued electronic tax invoices of KRW 350,100,850, and then claimed that the amount of the steel supply of KRW 112,530,850 is KRW 350,100,850, KRW 350, KRW 250, KRW 301, KRW 36125,250, KRW 2381,5250.

B. In the process of coming from steel supply transaction as above, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, upon settling the volume and unit price of steel materials supplied by the Plaintiff during the month following the month following the month of supply, confirmed steel price through mutual consultation on the basis of the electronic transaction specifications or transaction specifications statement to the Defendant, and thereafter, issued electronic tax invoices to the Defendant around the tenth day of each month. 2) The Plaintiff issued electronic tax invoices to the Defendant around July 1, 2014 to July 31, 2014.