손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is entitled to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) on November 1.
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that produces and sells swimming clothes, sports clothes, etc., and the Defendant is a person who runs the business of supplying originals, such as sports clothes, mountain clothes, and swimming clothes, in the trade name of “B.”
B. At the beginning of November 2015, the Defendant received contact from the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would wish to report the sampling of the original unit that is capable of creating the original unit, and provided it to the Plaintiff.
Since then, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to supply the original group “RKS-4034FD/SINGLE” (hereinafter “instant original group”).
C. On December 29, 2015, the Defendant supplied to the Plaintiff the instant headquarters equivalent to KRW 21,406,275, and KRW 549,120 on February 29, 2016, respectively. On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,703,138 to the Defendant in cash, and the remainder KRW 10,703,137 was paid in electronic bills, but the Plaintiff suspended payment of the said electronic bill.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case was accepted in the original division of this case.
On the other hand, there is a defect in the construction of a low ice, which seems as the son's country, which is caused by the lack of restoration capacity of the headquarters.
There is a defect that the rate of recovery from extension in the direction of the headquarters of this case considerably falls short of the standard.
As the Defendant did not supply the goods by marking “FACE” to the original body of this case, the Plaintiff did not mislead the Plaintiff into processing.
The defendant recognized his responsibility and suggested that he compensates for the 16 million won.
The plaintiff has lost the trust on the part of the C company, which has maintained the delivery relationship, such as Titts, throughout several years including this case, and suffered business losses.
Due to the defect of the headquarters of this case, the Plaintiff was subjected to 30% lower-level adjustment of the unit price of the soft goods supplied by the Plaintiff from the side of the C company.