물품대금
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a stock company that runs the wholesale and retail business of electronic equipment, and the Defendant is a stock company that manufactures and sells electronic control equipment.
B. On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied a server equivalent to KRW 14,850,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant goods”) and received KRW 9,280,300 from the Defendant as the price for the goods.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the main claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,569,700 (=14,850,000 - 9,280,300) payable to the plaintiff and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 30, 2018 to the date of full payment, as the plaintiff seeks.
3. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) supplied the Defendant with the instant goods in return for the supply of the plastic flag to C; and (b) had run a trial from May 2017; (c) but there were problems, such as the difference in the form of T/D, the occurrence of the difference in weight, and the occurrence of AI POCKT.
On February 12, 2018, the Defendant discovered defects in the instant goods and notified the Plaintiff of the defect on June 25, 2018.
In addition, due to the above defects, the defendant suffered damages of KRW 3 million for repair expenses, transportation expenses, sojourn expenses, sales reduction, and damages of KRW 9.5 million for the suspension of additional order, and the plaintiff is obligated to pay 9.5 million to the defendant and damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) It is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was defective in the instant goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the Defendant stated that there is a part omitted from the instant goods [690 “C” YE ENCODB/D (6054/HTL/00), but according to the description in subparagraph 2, the Defendant omitted from the Plaintiff.