beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 58,309,358 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 7, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that operates a furniture and a business of manufacturing interior materials with the trade name of B, and the Defendant is a corporation that operates a furniture manufacturing business, etc.
B. Until September 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant traded by processing materials and delivering them to the Defendant if the Defendant supplied them to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number)
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the balance of the processing cost in September 2017 is KRW 58,309,358.
The defendant asserts that the processing cost claimed by the plaintiff is KRW 7,861,768, which remains as calculated on the basis of wrong unit price.
B. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the balance of the processing cost that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 58,309,358, which is recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the items of evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including paper numbers).
① The Plaintiff’s employees signed the trading list prepared and submitted by the Plaintiff and returned it to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s employees signed the trading list with the signature of the specifications prepared and submitted by the Plaintiff.
In addition, the plaintiff is claiming the processing price calculated based on the above transaction statement.
② Around 2016, the Plaintiff sent a note to the Defendant to verify the unit price of each product, and the Defendant’s regular director stated the unit price of each supply in the note above and refunded the unit price to the Plaintiff.
The defendant asserts to the purport that the amount based on the price is unfair, since the regular director newly joined and consulted without knowing it.
However, there is no evidence to admit the defendant's assertion, and it is unfair to claim the price calculated based on the unit price stated by the defendant's regular director.