물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,44,00 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from December 25, 2014 to September 30, 2015, and the following.
In fact, the plaintiff received from the defendant around January 2013, a request for the development and manufacture of the NC product from the computer storage control, which is the control apparatus of the fast-sing machine processing machine from the defendant. On March 2013, the plaintiff supplied the product after completing the production around March 2013, and received the payment in full.
After examining the performance of the prototype supplied by the Plaintiff, the Defendant ordered KRW 200,000, which combines the CPU and the CPU to the above Medboard on December 3, 2013.
The plaintiff manufactured the above 200 Medboards and completed the supply around December 30, 2013.
The Plaintiff received 39,476,000 won in advance.
[Ground for recognition] No dispute exists. Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 2-6 (including a provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings is to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the goods price of KRW 45,440,00 and the damages for delay determined by the ratio of 20% per annum from December 25, 2014 following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to September 30, 2015, as requested by the plaintiff, pursuant to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion was not obliged to pay the price for the goods, since the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to return to the Plaintiff, according to the agreement that “the entire amount of the goods supplied is returned when the goods fall short of the standard for the submission of the goods supplied by the Defendant after the application of the goods supplied by the Defendant to the ECAT communications of the Defendant’s computer storage machine using the above domains due to the defects of the main
Judgment
The plaintiff and the defendant shall be the "RTX Group Reported" supplied by the plaintiff, and there is no dispute over the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to return this main seal when it falls short of the defendant's standard for presentation after applying this main seal to the defendant's product.
However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is due to the defect of the Plaintiff’s domain.
The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.