자재대금 청구의 소
1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) who exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (the “1. basic facts”). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of
[Attachment] 5] Under 3, “A comprehensively transfers all rights and obligations relating to the project” to the Plaintiff following the 5th day below the 5th day.
3 Under the 3rd below, “the notice was given” and this reached around the 15th day of the same month.
hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff" both A and the plaintiff at the workplace operated by B.
(b)the term "dozine";
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the Plaintiff’s claim, evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 9 as to the Plaintiff’s main claim, the Plaintiff supplied 3,241,527,487 won in total to the Defendant from October 31, 2012 to August 31, 2014. It is recognized that the Defendant paid KRW 2,433,264,725 out of the price of the said material, and that the Plaintiff bears the Defendant’s obligation to pay the price for raw materials, such as the waterproof board of this case, which is equivalent to KRW 544,565,975.
Therefore, barring special circumstances to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 263,696,787 = 3,241,527,487 won - 2,43,264,725 won - 54,565,975 won and damages for delay.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant discussed the settlement of the material price around January 2015, and agreed to settle the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim for the material price at KRW 147,264,289, as proposed by the Plaintiff on January 26, 2015. 2) The settlement agreement (Evidence 7-2) is the amount of KRW 40 million as stated in the settlement agreement (Evidence 7-2).
Therefore, the above KRW 40 million should be deducted from the amount of the Plaintiff’s material price claim.
3. The defendant shall against the plaintiff: