beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-3 and Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the plaintiff processed gold-type (including value-added tax) in an amount equivalent to 6,138,000 won (hereinafter "gold-type") from November 2012 to January 2013 and delivered it to the defendant, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above processing cost of KRW 6,138,00 and delay damages.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant had been unable to deliver the instant gold punishment to Hyundai Tech Co., Ltd., the ordering authority due to the defect in the instant gold punishment that the Plaintiff asserted by the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s written brief dated June 11, 2015, terminated the instant contract with the Defendant.
In addition, the Defendant suffered losses from Hyundai Entertainment Co., Ltd., which did not receive the remainder of KRW 7,425,00,000, and there is no money remaining if the Plaintiff offsets the amount of KRW 7,425,00 equivalent to the above amount of penalty to be paid to the Defendant by the amount of KRW 6,138,00,00. Thus, there is no money to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments in the statement or video of the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 3, No. 2-1 through 3, and Nos. 2-1 through 4, and each of the statement or video of the evidence No. 4 supplied by the Plaintiff, the fact that the Plaintiff suffered the same defect even after reprocessing the gold punishment at the Defendant’s request. Ultimately, it is recognized that the Defendant was judged to have failed to pass the instant gold punishment and was unable to receive the price of the goods equivalent to KRW 7,425,00 for the gold punishment. Meanwhile, on June 11, 2015, the Defendant stated that the processing contract for the gold punishment of this case concluded by the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated.