beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 15,349,437 as well as to the plaintiff on February 2016.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant, who operates B, with aluminium voltages up to August 25, 2015. The fact that the amount of the unpaid goods is equivalent to KRW 15,849,437 at the time of the submission of the complaint is either no dispute between the parties, or that the amount of the unpaid goods is equivalent to KRW 15,849,437, may be recognized by the respective statements in subparagraphs A and 5.
Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the price of the above goods and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. As to the assertion of defect and shortage in quantity, the defendant supplied defective goods to the defendant, and as a result, the defendant suffered damages due to the occurrence of the case where the defendant should re-produced and re-supply the goods in relation to the defendant's business partner, and there are cases where the quantity of the goods supplied by the plaintiff is insufficient, and the above money should be deducted from the price of the goods to be paid to the plaintiff, since the value of the goods falling short of the defect and quantity exceeds KRW 50 million.
However, even if there is a defect in the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant as alleged by the defendant, the value of the defective goods and the insufficient quantity can not be specified only by the evidence submitted by the defendant, and in full view of the entries in the evidence Nos. 5 and 7, and the whole purport of the statement and pleading Nos. 6, it is recognized that the defective goods among the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant are returned and deducted from the price of the goods in proportion to their value. Thus, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.
B. As to the assertion of deduction of gold production costs, the Defendant unilaterally suspended the supply of goods without settlement of defects and water shortage, and the Defendant spent 4.6 million won as the gold production cost, which the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff.