물품대금
The appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).
The judgment of the court of first instance is rendered.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in wholesale and retail business of plastic raw materials.
The defendant is a person who performs a work, such as purchasing plastic raw materials with the trade name of "C" and producing and supplying dyebines for salting.
B. From February 13, 2018, the Plaintiff began to supply plastic materials (D company E) to the Defendant from around February 13, 2018. From September 6, 2018 to September 14, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with 3,300 kilograms of plastic materials equivalent to KRW 20,223,50.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, and the purport before oral argument
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant is obligated to pay 20,223,500 won of plastic raw material supplied by the Plaintiff on September 2018, as well as delayed damages.
The Defendant requested the return of 1,300 g out of the aforementioned plastic raw materials on the ground of the reduction in the ordered volume of the F Company, which is the customer, and it is difficult to accept the request for return of the defective goods.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion ordered the Plaintiff to 2,00 kg of plastic raw materials. The Plaintiff supplied 3,300 g above the ordered quantity and rejected return.
The plaintiff is exempted from recovering 1,300 km supplied in excess.
B. (1) We examine whether the Defendant’s ordered volume to the Plaintiff is 2,000 g, 3,300 g.
In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant ordered 3,300 kms to the Plaintiff, and requested return due to the Defendant’s reasons unrelated to the Plaintiff, in light of the following facts acknowledged by Gap’s evidence No. 13, Gap evidence No. 14, Eul evidence No. 14, Eul evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 11-1, Eul evidence No. 11-2, Eul evidence No. 17, and Eul evidence No. 17.
① On December 26, 2018, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to return 2,250km and opened the quality of materials in “No. 11-1” purchased from the Plaintiff on September 2018.