물품대금
1. On October 9, 2014, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 20,840,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and KRW 7,840,000 out of the said money.
1. Under basic facts and judgment, each of the following facts can be acknowledged by the plaintiff and the defendant either without dispute between them, or by Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3-4, 6, 4-7, 1-1, 2, 2-2 through 4, and 2-2, and 2-2 through 4, and the whole purport of the pleadings in witness Eul's testimony.
On January 7, 2014, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were merchants, and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to manufacture and supply devices that maintain the quantity of a lelele being injected between glass in a certain way in order to create a leleology.
B. On February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s request, manufactured one machine for the purpose of the demonstration conference (so-called “sama”) in consultation with the Defendant’s employees Nonparty B, and estimated the amount to be KRW 2.65 million, and delivered it to the Defendant on February 5, 2014. The Defendant tested the normal operation of the said machine at the level of reinforcement, and paid KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff on February 24, 201.
C. By March 16, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were engaged in the manufacturing and test operation of the said machinery, and the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on the 21st of the same month.
On April 4, 2014, the Defendant held a re-convening fluor meeting using two public pumps equivalent to the total market value of 7.10,000 won supplied by the Plaintiff, one trawls for light fire engines with the market value of at least 300,000 won, one trawer for light fire engines with the market value of at least 70,000 won, two trawer with the total market value of at least 160,000 won, and eight trawer with the market value of at least 40,000 won with a free voltage of the market value of at least 40,000 won. After doing so, the Defendant held a re-convenor meeting at the same place on the 24th of the same month following the revised production and test operation.
E. The Plaintiff manufactured four machines of the same type as the machines manufactured as above (hereinafter “instant machines”) and requested the Defendant to accept them around July 10, 2014. However, the Defendant’s value-added tax of KRW 6,500,000 per two parts among them.