beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.09.28 2014가합18458

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 73,425,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for KRW 73,425,00 and its related amount from May 24, 2014 to September 28, 2016.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the content that the Defendant would manufacture and install automation machinery (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) that produces parts to be used in the back wheels of the automobiles in China (hereinafter “B”) on October 30, 2013, with the delivery date fixed as KRW 445 million (excluding value-added tax) and October 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

On May 30, 2013, before the conclusion of the instant construction contract, prior to the conclusion of the instant construction contract, the Defendant: (a) on May 30, 2013, prior to the conclusion of the instant construction contract; (b) on the premise that the Plaintiff was bound by the rate of 1: 4: The Defendant’s use of the source of 1W and the 11W electric power, the Defendant is a process necessary to convert a blure into a blure in order to ensure that the blure, blure, ture, and soft process automatically takes place;

RoAPD TRAVERS, Clamping/Clamping, crowdfunding/h trading, etc. sent e-mail to propose the production of automated machines that require approximately approximately 45 seconds of the time during which parts are produced (hereinafter referred to as “private e-mail”) via a total of seven processes.

A. 1, No. 7-1, No. 2 of the Act, which is the ordering authority, demanded that the equipment of this case should not be used at the time of manufacture of the machinery of this case, and the plaintiff delivered the above requirements to the defendant, and the defendant should be bound to generate power necessary for the search in order to meet the above requirements within the limit of 45 seconds, and the defendant prepared and submitted a report to the plaintiff that the machinery of this case is unstable unless the accelerator is used.

No. 17 of this case and the purport of the whole pleadings. The Defendant, in order to secure the power necessary for cutting off the instant machinery instead of being bound, has manufactured the instant machinery using the 22W senzer instead of the 11W senszer, and the said machinery was installed in B factory around January 4, 2014.

Any expert witness C.