1. The Defendant’s payment order for the goods price case No. 2019Da471 against the Plaintiff was issued by the Changwon District Court Kimhae-si, 2019Da471.

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 원고는 피고로부터 2018. 3.경부터 2018. 10.경까지 9,199,300원 상당의 지함(紙函)을 납품받고 그에 대한 세금계산서를 발행받았다.

B. By January 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,285,620 out of the goods price of KRW 9,199,300 to the Defendant.

C. On January 28, 2019, the Defendant filed an application with the court for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of the remainder of the unpaid goods (this Court No. 2019 tead. 471). On January 29, 2019, this Court issued a payment order ordering the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery day of the original copy of the payment order ( February 8, 2019) to the Plaintiff, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on February 22, 2019.

On the other hand, on February 14, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant out of the unpaid amount of KRW 6,913,680.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, facts with merit in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion not only paid KRW 3,00,000, out of KRW 6,913,680 of the amount of goods unpaid on February 14, 2019, but also paid to the Defendant. Since the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff at a price lower than the supply price of another company, the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff has a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 36,000,000 against the Defendant. If the Defendant offsets the above claim against the Defendant’s claim for goods payment, enforcement based on the instant payment order should be rejected.

3. Even in the case of the same kind of goods, the unit price may vary depending on various circumstances, such as the volume in excess of quantity, processing method, cost required for transportation, consumer and supplier relationship. Determination of the price of goods in a contract for supply of goods, which is a transaction between private persons subject to the principle of freedom of contract, is, in principle, belonging to the private autonomy area.