beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 85,985,350 and annual rate of KRW 6% from July 1, 2015 to March 16, 2017, and the next day.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to produce and supply the gold model of the “FROGY Model” (hereinafter “instant gold model”) to be produced by the Defendant, and agreed to pay KRW 137,500,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply). Of them, KRW 33,00,000 on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 49,50,000 on the day of the contract, and the late payment of KRW 49,50,000 after the completion of gold production (on April 6, 2015), the remainder, KRW 5,00,00 on the last day of the month following the completion of the supply of the first-do materials after the completion of gold production (on June 30, 2015), respectively.
B. Meanwhile, on April 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) requested the instant gold model A (B) to design the instant gold model; (b) concluded a secondary gold model agreement with the Plaintiff to pay 2,8050,000 won for the increase of the price of the gold model as a result of a subsequent design change; and (c) entered into an additional agreement with the Plaintiff on May 30, 2015.
C. Even thereafter, the Defendant modified the instant gold model several times, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s production cost increased. In light of this, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1364,00 (the Plaintiff’s estimate price was KRW 2,365,00,000, but the said amount was agreed upon), the production cost of sampling, and KRW 20,350,000,00,000,000, of sample production cost, together with the price of gold production.
After completing the production of the gold paper of this case, the Plaintiff obtained the approval from the Defendant by transmitting the samples of the grassland produced using it to the Defendant. After then, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff supplied the amount equivalent to KRW 16,390,000 to the person ordering the gold paper of this case, which was produced using the gold paper of this case.
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers in the case of additional number), the purport of whole pleadings
2. The Parties.