물품대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff (former: G) entered into a “OEM product supply contract” with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant supply contract”). The main content was to request the Defendant to produce the products planned and designed by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was to supply the products to the Plaintiff.
On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the incidental agreement on the instant supply contract (hereinafter “instant incidental agreement”), and under the instant incidental agreement, the supply price for the Plaintiff of the C Product to be produced by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant Product”) was set at KRW 15,000 per unit product (80ml x 50ml x value-added tax).
B. The Defendant supplied the raw materials from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff from September 30, 2014 to March 24, 2015, produced and supplied the instant products worth KRW 298,193,390 in accordance with the instant supply contract.
C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement of the remainder amount of KRW 13,872,560 for the supply of the instant product, as the Daejeon District Court, Hongsung Branch Court, 2017Gaso780, and damages for delay.
In the above lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a claim for the raw material price of KRW 114,230,000 due to the supply of raw materials for the price as claimed in this case, and asserted a set-off against the Defendant’s claim for the remainder of the goods price with the opposing claim.
On October 26, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant. On October 23, 2018, the appellate court of Daejeon District Court 2017Na7888, following the Plaintiff’s appeal, rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s counterclaim and dismissing the appeal on October 23, 2018 on the ground that “the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s obligation to pay the price of raw materials for the erroneous price.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on November 13, 2018.
hereinafter referred to as “the prior suit of this case”).