물품대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,96,114 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from August 19, 2014 to November 6, 2015, and the following.
1. It is recognized that the fact that the Plaintiff, who runs the wholesale business of goods related to the determination of the Plaintiff’s claim, entered into a contract for goods supply with the Defendant and supplied the automobile parts by August 18, 2014 is not a dispute between the parties, and that the Defendant did not pay 52,217,905 won (= KRW 12,348,410, KRW 12,411,355 won, KRW 10,257,148, KRW 3,200,274, KRW 470,822, including the value-added tax, and KRW 47,470,82, KRW 470,822, KRW 15,50, KRW 1257, KRW 148, KRW 410, and value-added tax) to the Plaintiff according to the overall purport of the argument in the statement in the evidence No. 1 to No. 5
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff agreed to reduce the 10% of the price of the goods when supplying the goods, and that the plaintiff agreed to reduce the 10% of the price of the goods within four months, while recognizing the fact that the plaintiff agreed to reduce the 10% of the price of the goods, the plaintiff agreed to pay the price of the goods within four months.
B. A person who asserts that the judgment was a condition attached to the juristic act must prove.
Even if the Defendant paid the price of the goods within four months as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement to reduce the price of the goods under the premise as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
46,996,114 won (i.e., KRW 52,217,905 x below KRW 0.9 and below) if the Defendant calculated the price of goods to be borne by the Plaintiff according to an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
3. Conclusion, the Defendant, as the price for goods 46,96,114 won for the Plaintiff and the price for each goods after the supply of the goods, raises an objection from August 19, 2014 that the Plaintiff seeks.