beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,620,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from November 21, 2012 to August 21, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim for the payment of the original supply price to the private line box
A. The facts of recognition (1) The Plaintiff is a person engaged in textile manufacturing and processing business with the trade name B, and the Defendant is a company engaged in the development, wholesale, retail, export, and import, etc. of the original and original group.
(2) On October 21, 2011, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to place an order for the supply of the SPS based on the following conditions:
ITEM No: HI-002 Product Name : 30 g/yd, 278g/m2: 400 g/p, 278g/m2: order quantity: NAVY 280 YD, YOLOW 280 m280 m280 m2.3) The Plaintiff intended to produce and supply 30 m20 m30 m387 m2 in accordance with the order order conditions described in paragraph (2), but was refused to receive it.
(4) Meanwhile, the unit price for the supply of the instant license plate is KRW 7,500 per page.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-2, 3-1, Gap evidence 9-1, Gap evidence 12, Eul witness's partial testimony, appraiser D's partial appraisal results, the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. (1) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion and determination, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is not obligated to pay the original cost of the instant license plate, since the original cost ordered by the Defendant was the original cost of the instant license plate, not the original cost of the license plate, and the original cost of the instant license plate is not the original cost of the license plate.
(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the instant printing headquarters conforms to the standard ordered by the Defendant; (ii) the Defendant ordered the sampling headquarters attached to the written order, i.e., the original unit of a private road, and accordingly, paid the price by being supplied with the original unit of the private road on November 30, 201 from the Plaintiff, but the testimony of the witness E is insufficient to recognize that the original unit ordered by the Defendant as the original unit of the private road; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the above, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff on October 21, 201.