beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From January 1, 1998 to January 31, 2015, the Defendant served as the head of the Plaintiff’s business team.
B. From April 201, the Plaintiff has been exported to QYJ company in China (hereinafter “ QYJ”) by means of a mediation of the dispute resolution committee in QYJ company from April 201.
C. On April 28, 2012, to QYJ on August 27, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the raw materials equivalent to USD 578,845.11.
However, QYJ did not pay US$ 81,030.62 out of the original cost by asserting defects such as differences in color and luminous problems, and damages due to delay in the payment period for the original cost to the original cost supplied by the Plaintiff.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 5, Eul Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff supplied QYJ with the original unit, agreed to receive 30% of the price at the time of commencement of the plaintiff's production after the original unit's production, and 70% of the remainder before the shipment after the original unit production. The plaintiff also received the original unit's payment in full and ordered the defendant to load the original unit after receiving the payment.
In addition, the KOTTTTBS Co., Ltd. confirmed the defects prior to the shipment of the original group, and agreed that the defective original body return to the plaintiff.
However, the defendant did not pay the original goods in full from QYJ, and even though it did not confirm the defects of the KTTTTTEX, it did not transfer the original goods to the KTTEX and made it to load them.
QYJ did not pay US$ 81,030.62 out of the total supply cost due to color or luminous defect, delay in payment period, etc. to the original unit supplied by the Plaintiff.
On the other hand, the defect of color or luminous as claimed by QYJ was caused by the error of the external company that conducted chloeing or processing, and the defendant, despite the repeated direction of the representative director, has to recover the original part and cause the defect.