beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 27,400,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 27, 2014 to November 3, 2014; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates livestock breeding consignment business, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant concluded a contract on April 4, 2014 with a private nursery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “private nursery”), an agricultural company (hereinafter “private nursery”).
(A) Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to receive a breeding fee from the plaintiff through the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is entitled to receive a brokerage fee in relation to the fact that the defendant raised Scari by cultivating Scari, and the plaintiff is entitled to receive a brokerage fee from Scaris.
From April 2014 to July 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 27,400,000 to the Defendant in advance in relation to the pertinent consignment breeding contract (5,000) as of April 29, 2014 (55,00). The Plaintiff decided to deduct the said amount from the commission for raising livestock related to the said entry (pre-paid payment) that the Plaintiff received from the private voters and paid to the Defendant.
C. However, due to the occurrence of the problem of Sariri which the Defendant was entrusted by the private farms, the Defendant did not ships properly, and the private farms did not pay the breeding fee to the Defendant in relation to the entry. D.
On October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document demanding reimbursement of KRW 27,400,000 for the said advance payment by content-certified mail, but filed an application for the instant payment order on October 27, 2014, which the Defendant did not repay.
E. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant filed a claim for damages against a private farmer on November 17, 2014, with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Da41157, and pending trial, arguing that a majority of the Scamplings, who had been in charge of raising, had already been infected by a contagious disease, incurred losses due to failure to ship the chickens properly.
[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence 3-1 through 5, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The case.