beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,210,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 16, 2017 to April 10, 2018.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 8 (including additional numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings:
On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to complete the payment of KRW 162,80,000 (including value-added tax) for the Plaintiff’s gold-type 10 of the AE-CAR ROR (6712-G2000/G205) gold-type 10 (hereinafter “the gold-type”).
(hereinafter “instant agreement”). Under the instant agreement, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the remainder of KRW 48,840,00 as a down payment after entering into a contract, 65,120,000, 48,840,000 as an intermediate payment after passing a part inspection, and 48,840,000 as an intermediate payment within two months after completing and delivering gold production, the Defendant paid the remainder within 30 days thereafter.
B. On December 2015, the Plaintiff produced the instant gold paper and delivered it to the Defendant.
C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 65,120,00 for down payment on August 31, 2015, KRW 48,840,00 for the first intermediate payment on November 2, 2015, and KRW 36,630,00 for the second intermediate payment on June 30, 2016.
2. Determination as to the claim of 12,210,000 won under the agreement of this case
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 12,210,000 which is paid out of the gold production cost of KRW 162,80,000 [=162,80,000 + (65,120,000 KRW - (68,840,000 KRW 36,630,00)] and delay damages under the instant agreement.
B. The defendant's argument 1) The defendant's argument that the defendant suffered losses due to the failure to pay the expenses to correct the defective parts due to the water works, among the gold punishment of this case produced and supplied by the plaintiff, and the losses due to the defect in the above products exceed 12,210,000 won (the amount equivalent to 8% of the total contract amount). Thus, the plaintiff's claim is filed.