물품대금
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 15,704,144 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from August 13, 2014 to July 17, 2015.
1. Judgment on the main lawsuit
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the supply price per unit from February 5, 2014 to June 12, 2014, as indicated in the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 12, was 480,000 supply price per unit from the Plaintiff to June 12, 2014.
Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 20,924,144, which is the sum of KRW 138,240,00 and KRW 5,220,00 for physical disease, and KRW 6,453,324 for pre-paid expenses, etc. paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant ( KRW 138,240,00 for KRW 5,220,00 for KRW 5,220,00 for KRW 6,453,324) which the Plaintiff already received from the Defendant, after deducting the amount of KRW 128,989,180 for goods that the Plaintiff had already received from the Defendant.
B. Around February 2014, the Plaintiff began transactions with the Defendant setting the price of 480,000 won per 1 water supply (hereinafter “instant contract”) and supplied 288 water supply units from the business to June 18, 2014, and the fact that the sum of the pre-paid fees and the expenses for revocation of the street paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant reaches KRW 6,453,324, is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 15,704,144 (14,693,324-128,989,189,180 won (14,693,324) and delay damages therefrom, which were the sum of 138,240,00 won for the goods of this case supplied by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff (288 x 480,000 won) and 6,453,324 won for prior payment, etc. paid by the Plaintiff, which was the sum of 128,989,180 won for prior payment, which was paid by the Plaintiff.
Although the Plaintiff also sought 348 payments for a physical disease, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the purchase and sale contract was concluded by setting the price per unit for a physical disease as 15,000 won in addition to the hydrogen storage period between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Rather, in full view of the evidence Nos. 5 and 8 of the evidence Nos. 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings by the witness B, the Plaintiff is C.