beta
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2017.10.11 2014가합1188

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 297,675,275 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from June 10, 2014 to September 30, 2015.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the business of wholesale business of b, etc. of b, and the Defendant is a person who conducts the business of manufacturing food b, etc. under the trade name of “B.”

B. Around the end of 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the condition that the Plaintiff will supply a cap used in the food crushing machine produced by the Defendant to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff requested the production of a cap to be supplied to the Defendant at EP Co., Ltd.

C. From January 2012 to October 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the model name SD200-200G (OG87), s9D120-220G (OG8), s9D150-220G (OH68), s9D150-220G (OH68), s9D150-220G (OH94), and scling.

The Defendant produced food for kitchen use using the collection of this case (hereinafter referred to as “food for kitchen use”) and sold it to consumers.

E. From September 25, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff and Esponsor Co., Ltd. of the occurrence of a defect in the mother of this case, and notified the Plaintiff and Esponsor of the occurrence of issues, such as return and refund of the instant food crushing machine, refund disposal, compensation for damages

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition】 Each entry in Gap's Evidence 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul's Evidence 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the fact that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant from January 201 to October 2013 under the contract of this case and the price for goods such as bending, which the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant is KRW 600,533,275 (=a total of KRW 529,100,275, the price for the goods for which the tax invoice was issued, and KRW 71,43,00,000, the price for the goods for which the tax invoice was not issued) can be acknowledged.