beta
Text
1. At the same time, the Defendant received the virtual Pipe Switzerland from the Plaintiff (the model name TXD850) from the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff on 28.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 21, 201, A entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the supply of goods with respect to the HD image production system equipment (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”) with the following terms and conditions, and agreed on the supply period until November 25, 201.
Price: Conditions for approval of KRW 60,995,00 (excluding value-added tax): 30,497,500 at the time of issuing an order for cash payment of KRW 30,497,50 (excluding value-added tax): The place of cash delivery of KRW 30,497,50 within seven days after the completion of the delivery of cash payment of KRW 30,50 at the time of issuing
B. On November 11, 201, the Plaintiff is the core equipment of the Defendant and HD Video Production System equipment.
Of the subject matter of supply stated in paragraph 4, the name “name” entered into a sales contract with the sales price of KRW 25,50,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the virtual scXD 450 (hereinafter “TXD 450”) listed in paragraph 4, and the Defendant agreed to deliver TXD 450 directly to A by November 25, 201. The Defendant delayed entry into the Republic of Korea on November 21, 201, the error occurred from TXD 850 temporary supply of TXD 850 (hereinafter “TX 450”) and then temporarily replaced the TX 30C type 30 on November 29, 2011.
C. On January 31, 2012, A sent to the Plaintiff a written statement that “A” was supplied with a product different from that contracted by the Plaintiff (TXD 450) and demanded the exchange of goods under the initial contract, and that it was promised to exchange the product in the future. Nevertheless, the Defendant terminated the contract for the supply of goods between A and the Plaintiff on the grounds that “A and the Plaintiff did not perform the contract upon the extension of three occasions of the execution date of the contract,” and that “A did not perform the contract.” The Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a written statement of refusing to perform the supply of goods by February 10, 2012, requiring the return of the goods and the collection of the goods to be supplied, and then arrived at the Plaintiff at that time.
On the other hand, however,