beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2, 12 to 6, 2, 2) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, (c) the summary is included in the text
The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the judgment on the claim for a penalty surcharge is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 4 to No. 11, No. 16 under the second attached Table), except for the case for which the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered as follows. Thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
The following shall be added between the 7th page 5 and the 6th page:
A) Since the parties to each development agreement of this case (Evidence A 2) are Co., Ltd. that is not the defendant, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for monetary expenses against the defendant is without merit.
Part 7 Chapter 6 "A" has been added to "B". Part 7 Chapter 13 "B" has been added to "C". The following is added between the 7th and 15. The Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of gold to be paid to the Plaintiff in a way that deducts a specific amount from the price of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant pursuant to Article 9 of each development agreement of this case. The amount to be deducted is 80,641,260 won per unit for the 201 and 64,001 supply volume of 64,001, 260 won per unit for the 2012 80,641,260 won (=64,01 x 1,260) and the total amount to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff from 2013 to December 1, 2015 x 36,006 won per unit, 306,30666,606 won per unit for the Plaintiff.
B. Whether the parties to each development contract of this case are Co., Ltd. which is not the defendant, the defendant is each of the development contract of this case.