logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.08.28 2015나3199
물품대금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a product development agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the content that the Plaintiff shall develop the PCB (Pinted Circard, Printed circuit board), L CD (Liquid Cryst Disphy, liquid monitors), etc. and the Defendant shall pay KRW 35,000,000 at its development cost.

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff commenced the development of the PCB, etc. under the instant contract and completed it on July 2013, and received KRW 28,000,000,000 from the Defendant as part of the development cost, including the total amount of KRW 10,50,000 on April 3, 2013, and KRW 7,000,000 on June 10, 2013, and KRW 10,50,000 on July 31, 2013.

C. Meanwhile, upon the Defendant’s request for delivery, the Plaintiff supplied 3,500 PCB, etc. to the Defendant from November 8, 2013 to November 25, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to a claim for supply price, such as PCB

A. 1) As to the unit price of the PCB, etc. supplied to the Defendant by both of the claims, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff agreed to calculate it as KRW 9,681, while the Defendant agreed to calculate it as KRW 6,000. 2) As to the unit price of the PCB, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to calculate the unit price of the PCB, etc. as KRW 9,681, by only the descriptions of Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-4, 8, 12, and 20, evidence No. 21-1, and evidence No. 21-2, respectively.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 21,000,000 (=3,500 x 6,000) as the supply price of PCB, etc. and its delay damages.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of set-off, the Defendant’s defect, such as the 1-school functional pressing, the open line, etc. first, due to the defect of the accessories, such as the PCB developed and supplied by the Plaintiff.

arrow