beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person engaged in mechanical equipment, parts processing and manufacturing business, and the Defendant is a juristic person engaged in mechanical design, mechanical manufacturing business, etc.
B. Upon the Defendant’s request for orders, the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff with the total amount of KRW 61,453,700 from May 2017 to February 2018 as follows:
(1) On January 31, 2018, KRW 27,768,40 of the supply value of C Company’s crops from January 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant dispute”). On May 31, 2017, the supply amount (including the amount of tax) of the product on the date of supply, KRW 7,040,00, KRW 11,531,530 on June 30, 2017, KRW 11,531,530 on July 31, 2017; KRW 1,980,000 on August 31, 2017; KRW 1,980,000 on processed products; KRW 6,930,00 on December 29, 2017; KRW 308,50 on August 31, 208; KRW 308,581,208.37,2085.
C. The Defendant also provided goods or services to the Plaintiff from May 2017 to February 2018 upon the Plaintiff’s request for orders. As of the date of closing argument in the trial, the Plaintiff is a person who bears a total of KRW 32,390,600 for the Defendant as of the date of closing argument in the trial.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining goods price of KRW 29,063,100 after deducting the amount of debt 32,390,600 to the defendant himself/herself recognized by the plaintiff from the total amount of the claim amount of KRW 61,453,700 against the defendant as requested by the plaintiff, as requested by the plaintiff.
B. First of all, the defendant asserts that the value of supply of the part in the dispute in this case is excessively excessive and unfair.
In other words, the defendant recognizes that the goods are supplied by the plaintiff, but the amount is unilaterally issued by the plaintiff without consultation with the defendant.