beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 7,840,809 and its amount from March 1, 2015 to December 2, 2015.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around December 19, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the goods from the Defendant and transported them to the milk supplier designated by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement to supply goods with the Defendant to pay the goods to the Defendant, and the Defendant to the Plaintiff a mutual consignment fee (hereinafter “instant goods supply transaction agreement”). Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant.
Meanwhile, at the time of the agreement on the transaction of goods supply, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from the day following the date of payment of the price for goods to the day of full payment when the Plaintiff delays the performance of the obligation.
B. From the end of December 2014, the Defendant: (a) calculated the sum of the credit amount incurred in the transaction of goods between the Plaintiff’s representative director at the end of each month; (b) the amount of money in exchange for credit incurred in the transaction of goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (c) the amount of money in return for the Plaintiff’s failure to return from the Defendant (hereinafter “the Plaintiff was marked as a person on duty”; and (d) the unpaid panelT (the amount of damages incurred in the Plaintiff’s failure to transport the goods to the supplier at the time of offering the goods upon entrustment to the supplier; and (e) the amount of money in exchange for the Plaintiff’s return to the Defendant; and (e) settled the account by reducing the transportation consignment fee; and (e) the amount of money in exchange for the goods returned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant;
(A) The Plaintiff and the Defendant maintained a goods supply transaction agreement only until the end of February 2015. The Defendant reduced the Plaintiff’s goods requested to supply by proxy, while the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff the goods to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not receive the Plaintiff’s representative director’s seal on the details of transactions and the confirmation of credit after 2015, as the Plaintiff and the Defendant conflict with each other on the settlement of goods prices.
The plaintiff.