물품대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
Facts of recognition
The plaintiff and the defendant are both companies engaged in household production, wholesale and retail business, etc.
Around 2006, the Defendant entered into a contract for supply of goods with the non-flag test (hereinafter “non-flag test”) that provides that the Defendant will supply the non-flag to the non-flag test, such as convenience carcers, display sites, decorations, and staff units.
Around 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made an oral agreement between G and D, who are the husband of F, the former representative director of the Defendant, with the effect that the Plaintiff, who is the joint representative director of the Plaintiff, in substance operates the company, would be friendly with each other. Around 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant ordered the Defendant to supply the goods to the Defendant under the above goods supply contract, but the Plaintiff would supply the goods to the Defendant. However, when the Defendant received the goods from the non-buster to the Plaintiff and paid the remainder after deducting the Defendant’s profits (which appears to be the money in the name of the introduction fee or commission) from the Defendant’s payment, the Plaintiff would settle the goods price (hereinafter “the instant household supply agreement”). The Defendant implementation of the household supply agreement and the settlement of the goods price from around 2006 to December 201, deducted the amount of value-added tax excluding the goods price paid from the non-buster to the Plaintiff and paid the remainder to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “First Calculation Method.” On January 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder to the Plaintiff after deducting 10% of the amount including value-added tax from the Defendant’s profit, out of the amount of goods paid by the Defendant from the Non-Plap test in the future.
(hereinafter “Second Calculation Method”). Accordingly, the Defendant’s profit decreases, and the amount of goods paid by the Plaintiff is increased.
For example, the defendant.