beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the cause of the claim is a person operating a motor vehicle parts supplier with the trade name of “B.” The Defendant is a company with the purpose of Oratop projects, etc., and the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the de facto tape, column, and other motor vehicle parts from April 2012 to February 2014. The Plaintiff was partly reimbursed the price for goods and the credit card fee borne by the Defendant, but the price for goods not received from the Defendant as of February 19, 2014 and the card fee for 17,440,000 are either a dispute between the parties, or there is no credit card fee between the parties, or the entire purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply).
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 17,440,000 won and card fees, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 12, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is obvious from March 12, 2014 to day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant alleged to the effect that the plaintiff ordered the defendant to act as a general sales agency of the automobile parts, but did not comply with it, and did not act as a new program operator, etc., but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. In addition, the defendant asserts that the price of parts supplied by the plaintiff, such as the plaintiff's increase of 40% of the supply price of goods from March 2013 without consultation, is unreasonable because the price of parts supplied by the plaintiff is higher than that of other companies. Accordingly, the plaintiff's supply of other goods with a high price around March 2013 and the price of the goods is adjusted.
The price of goods supplied by the Plaintiff is excessive compared to that of other businesses.