기타(금전)
1. The claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. On June 7, 2010, 2010, Maerer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) entered into a contract with the Defendant to produce and deliver clothing entrusted by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) and traded with the Defendant until November 19, 2014.
B. According to the instant contract, the Defendant ordered the instant company to produce samples in accordance with the Defendant’s production request and letter, and the instant company produced and delivered the samples ordered to the Defendant.
C. The Defendant did not pay 340,431,00 won for sample production in 2014.
On June 27, 2017, a decision was made to commence rehabilitation procedures for the instant company and appoint A as a custodian.
E. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 340,431,00 and damages for delay stated in the purport of the claim thereof in accordance with the legal principles of the goods delivery contract or the practice of the industry.
F. In addition, among the samples supplied by the company of this case, those that constitute a design that the defendant did not adopt are unnecessary for the purpose of the contract of this case. Since the defendant used them for the purpose of the contract of this case and did not return them voluntarily and without any legal ground, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 340,431,000 won as a return of unjust enrichment and damages for delay as stated in the purport of the claim.
2. Determination and conclusion No. 1-A
subsection (b),
subsections, d.
Facts of each argument described in the paragraph shall be either dispute between the parties or acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings.
However, in 2014, whether the sample production cost is KRW 340,431,00, and whether the Defendant is obligated to pay the sample production cost to the Plaintiff in accordance with the legal principles of the goods supply contract or the business practices of the industry in 2014, and the Defendant was not adopted among the samples that the instant company delivered to the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff.