물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,355,119 and interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from March 28, 2014 to the date of complete payment.
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the provisional number) and the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was ordered by the defendant and supplied goods equivalent to KRW 131,111,526 in total from January 28, 2013 to August 2013. The defendant approved only KRW 71,756,407 among them. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining goods price of KRW 59,355,119 (= KRW 131,111,526 – KRW 71,756,407) and damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 28, 2014 to the date of complete payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. On July 2013, the Defendant: (a) processed the cosmetic Mact scam scam scams supplied by the Plaintiff and produced them, and then exported them to the Republic of Korea through the Arwitner; and (b) incurred damages of KRW 90,708,00 due to the discovery of foreign substances and insects in the above wave; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant; (d) based on the above damages claim as the automatic bond, the Plaintiff would offset the said damages claim against the Defendant’s goods payment claim against the Defendant.
B. However, the fact that the plaintiff's goods were exported to the defendant, not as it is to be exported to the defendant, but as a result, processed them and made them through another company, and then exported to the Taiwan company through another company is the defendant. Thus, even if it is acknowledged that foreign materials and punishment were discovered in the above-mentioned goods in accordance with each of the evidence (including the paper numbers) of Eul 1 through 3, it is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's goods were defective in the supplied goods to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
(Defendant asserted that the burden of proof exists on the Plaintiff and rejected any further proof)
C. Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.