beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of metal gambling business, etc., and the Defendant, on December 7, 1998, engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic motor vehicle parts under the trade name “B,” and was closed on June 30, 2009 and run the business of manufacturing electronic motor vehicle parts again with “C,” around July 2009.
B. The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with automobile parts processing services from around 2005 to December 2015.
C. The settlement of processing costs between the original Defendant and the Defendant was conducted by the method of issuing a tax invoice after verifying the details of the monthly supply status when the Defendant prepared and sent it to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. On August 2006, the Plaintiff, at the request of the Defendant D Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s business partner, changed the amount of gold to 6 Croat rate to 3 Croat rate, and agreed that the unit price increase arising from the change of gold collection between the Defendant and the Defendant would be settled later and paid.
Around May 2008, 10,123,545 won (3 Do gold A/SINK 711,480 won) was settled as a result of the settlement of accounts for the Do gold-free price at KRW 10,123,545 (3 Do gold A/SINK 217,275 won) upon completion of the transaction with B operated by the Defendant. Since the Defendant paid 300,000 won to the Plaintiff for the remainder of KRW 11,573,494 (i.e., KRW 10,123,545 won, KRW 11,573,494 won, KRW 11,573,494 won, and KRW 300,000,000 for delay damages from December 3, 2008 to December 13, 2012, the remaining amount of 306,000 won was paid to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant closed down his business and settled all the outstanding amounts with the Plaintiff, and there is no ground to acknowledge that the Defendant is KRW 10,123,545 for the increase in the unit price of the gold Do that was settled around May 2008.
There is no money paid by the Defendant.
3. Determination
(a) B outstanding amounts;