beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,912,269 as well as 6% per annum from January 1, 2018 to July 8, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to pay KRW 5,500 per square meter in the case of a front board (in addition; hereinafter the same shall apply), KRW 10,00 per square meter in the case of a inside box, and KRW 350 per km in the case of a press box (hereinafter referred to as “the instant clinical processing contract”).
B. The Plaintiff supplied materials from the Defendant based on the instant contract, and manufactured and supplied the processed products from March 27, 2017 to December 30, 2017.
C. The Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a tax invoice equivalent to KRW 168,512,410 in the course of the transaction under the instant contract from March 27, 2017 to December 30, 2017 (including the cost of transportation of goods). The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 119,731,850 in total as the cost of transportation of goods from April 4, 2017 to January 18, 2018.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 through 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion in the course of the instant consignment processing contract increases the price of KRW 5,500 to KRW 6,500,7,000 per square meter in sequential order in the case of a full-scale plate in the course of the transaction under the instant consignment processing contract. In the case of other goods, the Plaintiff’s oral agreement to increase the price by phase (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
(2) The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the processing service equivalent to the sum of KRW 168,512,410, which is calculated at the price raised according to the instant agreement, but the Defendant paid only KRW 119,731,850 to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the processed amount payable and the amount of delay damages therefor. (2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant agreed to increase the processing cost, as alleged by the Plaintiff.