beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,856,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from January 1, 2017 to August 21, 2017.
Reasons
1. Determination on the plaintiff's claim
A. If Party A’s written evidence No. 1 reveals the purport of the entire pleadings on the ground of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff agreed to pay to the Defendant the total amount of KRW 30,856,000 foot 29,00 per box around October 10, 2016, KRW 88 boxes on December 31, 201 of the same year, KRW 35,000 per box around December 11, 206, KRW 35,000 per box, KRW 88 boxes on December 31, 200, KRW 40,000 per box around December 15, 201 of the same year, and the purchase price shall be paid by December 31, 2016.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 30,856,00 for the purchase price of the ship and delay damages therefor.
B. The summary of the argument by the Defendant is as follows: ① (a) the Plaintiff cultivated a chemical fertilizer, growth promotion agents, and swelves without using it, and agreed to supply 40,000 won per box to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff appears to have reduced the amount of approximately 200 boxes during the cultivated ship in a different place; and (b) the Defendant supplied to the Defendant was not directly cultivated by the Defendant. As a result, the Defendant suffered a significant loss, the Plaintiff’s purchase price claim is unfair. ② The Plaintiff’s distribution supplied to the Plaintiff is most of the black disease, and its value is increased, and the Plaintiff’s purchase price claim is only 5,624,405 won. ② The Plaintiff agreed to grow a contract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the swelves of the Plaintiff cultivated are deemed to have failed to reach the original Defendant’s expectation.
However, the only description of Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 alone makes the plaintiff deduction of his ship, which is a similar object.
It is insufficient to recognize the fact that he/she supplied a vessel cultivated by another person, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In particular, according to the statement of Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant is divided into B and refined items according to the status of the ship purchased in preparation of the certificate of acceptance, and the price shall be determined according to it.