매매대금
1. Each appeal by the Defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation in this case is as follows, except for the part concerning the defendants' assertion stated in Chapters 3, 11, 6, and 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part concerning the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Parts to be dried;
A. On April 15, 2013, when the Plaintiff continued to supply ready-mixeds, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the fact that the Plaintiff could no longer supply ready-mixeds unless half of the outstanding amount of ready-mixeds is paid. The Defendant had no choice but to be supplied with ready-mixeds from other ready-mixed suppliers than the Plaintiff from around that time until the completion of the new construction of this case. due to the increase in the purchase price, Defendant B paid an additional amount of 10,514,640 won compared to the estimated ready-mixeds. Furthermore, due to the Plaintiff’s refusal to supply the above, Defendant B sustained damages of 10,514,640 won, which is equivalent to the price of the above ready-mixeds, in collusion with other ready-mixeds or ready-mixeds Association, the Plaintiff newly constructed the instant ready-mixeds from 203,000 to 2130,000 after the completion of the new construction of this case.
Accordingly, Defendant B is liable for the delayed payment corresponding to the 20th day of the delay period to the contractor of the new construction of this case, and the delayed payment amounting to 252,00,000 won (=4.2 billion won of the contract amount x 0.3% of the delayed payment rate x 20 days).
3) Therefore, Defendant B suffered a total loss of KRW 262,514,640 (i.e., KRW 10,514,640 (i.e., KRW 252,00,000) due to the Plaintiff’s refusal to supply ready-mixeds and the Plaintiff’s obstruction to supply. Accordingly, Defendant B was not paid as a passive claim with its automatic claim.