beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 73,432,805 annually from November 29, 2018 to July 24, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “C,” engaged in the manufacturing industry, such as motor vehicle parts, etc., manufactured and supplied the Defendant among the motor vehicle parts from April 5, 2016 to July 10, 2018.
B. As to those who were supplied from May 2, 2018 to July 10, 2018, the Plaintiff has not yet been paid the price. The details of transactions issued by the Plaintiff during the said period and signed in the Defendant’s employees D, E, and F that the Defendant’s employees D, E, and F should spread, and the Plaintiff’s column stated the items, size, quantity, and unit price of the supplied seller, and the value of supply (including the amount of tax) is KRW 73,432,805 in total.
【Reason for Recognition】 Each description of evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 73,432,805 to the Plaintiff the mid-term payment from May 2, 2018 to July 10, 2018.
B. As to the Defendant’s argument, the Plaintiff unilaterally increased the supply unit price of the former G (trade name: H and I) from May 2016 even though the Plaintiff agreed to apply the supply unit price of the former G (trade name) to the former product, and applied the supply unit price to the new product among the new products supplied from May 2017. The Plaintiff applied the supply unit price higher than the market price in the case of the latter product among the new products supplied from May 2017. If the Plaintiff offsets unjust enrichment or damages equivalent to KRW 88,759,258 (the supply unit price or the market price of the Gu) by the difference between the latter and the appropriate price (the supply unit price or the market price of the Gu).
The written evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) alone agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to apply the unit price of G in the case of the existing product.
In the case of a person who is a new development product, it is not sufficient to recognize that the market price should be applied as a supply unit price, and there is no other evidence.
Rather, the defendant on April 2016.