beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 1,270,00,000 as well as the full payment from August 6, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) contracted with the Defendant, who is engaged in the manufacturing business of rubber scenic lines with a trade name called rubber C, to complete the said work, at the unit price of KRW 1,000 per dog (Additional Tariff) 5,700 per dog (hereinafter “instant goods”); and (b) completed the said work.
B. The Plaintiff received KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant and transferred KRW 5,000,000 among them to Nonparty D who performed the gold-related work of the instant goods, and received the remainder of KRW 5,000,000 as its annual payment.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim on the main claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,270,000 won (=(1,00 won x 5,700 won x 1.1) - 5,00,000 won) and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 6, 2016 to the date of complete payment, as the plaintiff seeks.
The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for both the gold and the tobacco of this case, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff at the service cost. However, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract only for the performance of the instant goods from the Defendant, as seen above, and the Plaintiff and D, who performed the musical work, separately claimed the service cost for the part of the instant goods, and the Defendant’s assertion seems to have no practical benefits. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.
3. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff and D should jointly and severally compensate the defendant for damages equivalent to the above amount as a result of disposing of the goods of this case as a defect in the tobacco or gold processing of the goods of this case due to a defect in the tobacco or gold processing of the goods of this case. However, it is reasonable to recognize the fact that the entries and images of the evidence Nos. 1 through 2 were defective in the plaintiff's tobacco processing work.