약정금
1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be applied for the return of the provisional payment.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the new argument of the defendant at the trial of the court of first instance under the 5th page 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such new argument is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant's assertion has been supplied to S&T cable products to the third subcontractor as the fourth subcontractor of modern automobiles.
Since 2015, the quality inspection of modern automobiles for subcontractors was strengthened, and the parts produced by companies that did not obtain quality certification from the side of modern automobiles were not supplied.
The Defendant, on the temporary basis, found the Defendant’s products to be defective as if they were produced at the Plaintiff’s factory (which is a company that obtained S&T reproduction, and that supplies products to S&T slab).
However, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay an excessive amount of money in return for lending its S&T certification, and the Defendant, who is at issue, mediated the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
As a result, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 3,187,787 and the facility storage fee of KRW 4,950,000 to the Plaintiff, which agreed that there is no claim and debt between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the Plaintiff a fee of KRW 34,650,000 for 63 days calculated as KRW 500,000 per day.
B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the testimony of the witness A at the trial room, is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant “the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 3,187,787 and the Defendant paid KRW 4,950,000 for the electrical construction cost and the storage cost of facilities and equipment to the Plaintiff, and there is an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the claims and the Defendant did not exist any more,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is acceptable.