물품대금 등
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 238,852,114 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 24, 2014 to the date of full payment.
1. The judgment on the cause of the claim is based on the following facts: (a) around 2004, the Defendant entered into an agency contract for the sale of sirens produced by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”) and continued to be supplied with sirens from the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant from January 31, 201 to October 31, 201, and the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant the amount of the non-paid payment of Ansans to the Defendant during the period from January 31, 201 to October 31, 2012, and the fact that the amount of the non-paid payment of Ansans was 238,852,114 is either a dispute between the parties, or that the entire purport of the pleadings
According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 238,852,114 won payable to the plaintiff and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from April 24, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant's assertion 1 as to the argument that the amount should be settled after returning and treating the safe rentals supplied by the defendant. The defendant's assertion that the representative director of the plaintiff, who had been engaged in the composition procedure as of 2004, entered into the contract of this case by requesting the plaintiff's recommendation that "the plaintiff actively conducts business and promotional activities to supply a large quantity of quantity" and "the plaintiff was supplied with sirens equivalent to KRW 200 million. Accordingly, the defendant was supplied with the defendant, and the plaintiff did not claim the outstanding amount even though the amount of the defendant's attempted amount was not small until the filing of the contract of this case, regardless of the defect of the product of this case. In addition, since the above contract of this case was distinct, the defendant was traded on a condition that the defendant can freely return and dispose of the outstanding amount, regardless of the defect of the product. However, since the defendant is now seeking to return sirens equivalent to the claim amount of this case, there is no price to be paid to the plaintiff. 2)