beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 74,017,949 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 21, 2016 to August 22, 2019; and
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 2015, C, the Defendant’s co-representative director, entrusted the Plaintiff with the manufacture of packaging voltages, non-scriptive machines, etc. (hereinafter “instant machines”), which are machinery and equipment necessary for the production of plastic products, and agreed to settle the cost of the manufacture at actual cost, i.e., the cost of the manufacture that was actually paid.
B. Accordingly, by May 2016, the Plaintiff produced the instant machinery to the Defendant and supplied it to the Defendant. By June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that KRW 249,800,218 was required as actual cost and claimed as the cost of production.
C. Meanwhile, from September 2015 to May 31, 2016, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 1350,000 to the Plaintiff as the production cost. However, the Defendant refused to pay the additional production cost upon requesting the submission and settlement of evidentiary materials.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract with the terms of the contract to settle down the manufacturing price after the completion of the supply, if the plaintiff manufactures the machinery at the cost of the manufacture of the machinery of this case.
Furthermore, if we look at the purport of the entire argument as a result of appraiser D’s appraisal as to the total amount of expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in the manufacture of the instant machinery, the Plaintiff can recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 209,097,949 to the manufacture of the instant machinery due to material expenses, labor expenses, other expenses, general administration expenses, etc., and the result of inquiry as to appraiser D (the same shall apply to the statement in Eul evidence 4) of this court does not interfere with the above recognition. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s construction cost of the instant machinery to be paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 209,097,949.
B. As to this, the defendant shall submit the relevant documents as a result of appraiser D's appraisal.