beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant is the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts recognized;
A. On June 2015, the Intervenor entered into a contract on the supply of steel products (hereinafter referred to as “instant product”) located in Galvame (hereinafter referred to as “instant product”) with which the Intervenor had been supplied by the Plaintiff and completed the cryet work (the process that was made in a timely manner by closely examining original products) with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant product”).
(2) The details of the transaction between the intervenor and the defendant under the instant goods supply contract are as follows: ① the intervenor only sells the instant goods to the defendant, and deliver the goods ordered by the defendant to the manufacturer designated by the defendant or the defendant, and ② the defendant paid the goods price calculated as of the last day of each month to the intervenor by the last day of the following month.
(3) The Intervenor was not paid KRW 405,298,460 (the price for the goods on September 2016 is KRW 82,278,185, among the price for the goods that was traded from the Defendant from June 23, 2015 to September 30, 2016 (hereinafter “the price for the goods in September 2016”) and was not paid in full due to the transactions in October 12, 2016 and October 14 (hereinafter “the price for the goods in this case”).
(4) Meanwhile, around September 2015, the Intervenor and the Defendant asserted that “the Intervenor’s interest rate of KRW 200,000,000,000 out of the amount of goods for July and August 2015 that occurred during the continuation of the instant transaction” was 6% per annum, and since one year, the due date is 1 year, the Defendant asserted that “after three years” or “after December 31, 2016,” the due date stipulated in the instant quasi-Loan Loan Agreement. However, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the due date stipulated in the instant quasi-Loan Loan Agreement is “after three years.”
Next, according to the evidence No. 17, E, the representative of the intervenor, around May 2015, is about 200,000 to the defendant by the intervenor who is the actual manager of the defendant.