손해배상
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On January 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to process the pre-processing of ELG-based golf line by Eanteex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Eanteex”), and then requested the Defendant to do so by the end of February 25, 2014, with the pre-processing cost of 1,343,000 won, and the delivery period of the pre-processing.
The defendant did not deliver the goods within the above delivery period and there was a defect in the goods supplied after the delivery, and due to the delay in the payment period and the defect in the goods, the plaintiff suffered loss from the failure to receive the rent of KRW 12,261,80 on April 7, 2014 from Eanex.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 12,261,800 won as damages and damages for delay.
2. First of all, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact by only the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 submitted by the Plaintiff, as to whether the Defendant delayed the processing process or was defective in the product, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, in light of the overall purport of the oral argument in the statement No. 1, it is recognized that ① processing prior to the Defendant’s pre-processing work, which was pre-processing work, but delayed its delivery; ② the Defendant did not receive KRW 2,200,00 from the Plaintiff even after the completion of pre-processing work; ② on October 10, 2014, the Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2014Gau134215 filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to order the payment of the pre-processing cost on November 25, 2014, and received a performance recommendation order to order the payment of the pre-processing cost; ③ according to the above performance recommendation decision, the Plaintiff conducted compulsory execution of corporeal movables, such as the Plaintiff’s wing machinery, and ③ in that process, the Plaintiff did not have claimed damages due to any defect or defect in the products supplied by the Defendant.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so revoked and the plaintiff's claim is revoked.