beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff’s currency 21,654,500 UN and 500,000 UN among them, the Defendant from July 1, 2016 to 500.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a Japanese corporation that manufactures and sells telecommunications machinery and appliances, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs business related to the development, production, sale, and installation of an information and communications system.
B. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods equivalent to the sum of 30,427,500 UN, and only received from the Defendant only 7,463,00 UN ( July 24, 2013, 964,000, August 7, 2013, 500,000 UN, and November 21, 2013, 200,000 UN, and 9,000,000 on December 18, 2013, respectively, as follows.
On June 10, 2013, the supply price of goods at the time of the order (N) means the Mod Modle Radle ludle ludrums on November 48, 2013.
9,765,000 means September 27, 2013. 7,208,500 on September 27, 2013. 2,718,00 on June 28, 2013. 27, 2018,00 on September 28, 2013. 3, 915,00 on June 28, 2013. 28, 200 on June 28, 2013:
Module 160,00 total 30,427,500
C. On March 8, 2016, the Defendant: (a) prepared and implemented the “Titch Payment Schedule” with the following details written on the Plaintiff; (b) did not pay the remainder of the purchase price with only 1,310,000 UN ( April 7, 2016, 310,000 UN, May 10, 2016, 50,000 UN, June 30, 2016, and 50,000N) until June 30, 2016.
Upon completion of payment of the amount expected on March 310, 200,000 on April 5, 2016, 200, 500,000 on May 500, 2016, 500,000 June 500, 2016, 500,000 on July 500, 200 on August 50, 2016, 200,000 on September 50, 200, 200 on September 50, 2016, 200 on October 50, 2000, 200, 50,000,000 on November 5, 2016, 200, 2000, 20000, 2016, there is no dispute as to the preparation for new lines of pleading as to the remainder of the amount under subparagraphs A through 6 (including each subparagraph; hereinafter the same shall apply).
2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff suspended the repayment period by allowing the Defendant to pay a part of the remainder of the goods payment to the Defendant in installments on nine occasions from March 2016 to November 2016, pursuant to the “Moste Provision”.