beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 92 million and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 26, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The background leading to the instant lawsuit;
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that operates an Kim Processing Factory, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells straw pumps used as a drying machine in the Kim Processing Factory.
B. On August 17, 2011, the Plaintiff sought an explanation from the Defendant that “the hump pumps produced by the Defendant Company has a superior fuel cost reduction effect compared to the existing oil or electric drieder, and is optimal for the production of Kim by performing the high-efficiency construction function (Evidence 2-2 and Evidence 3-2).” On August 17, 201, the Plaintiff purchased eight of the hump pumps (the model name HD-A20S1; hereinafter “hump pumps”) from the Defendant at KRW 165 million, and the delivery period on October 10, 201.
C. The Plaintiff, in accordance with the sales contract, was handed over the eight pumps and installed in the Kim Processing Factory. From August 18, 201 to January 4, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 132 million to the Defendant out of the purchase price of the eight pumps of this case.
On the other hand, on July 201 and August 201, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on March 29, 201 against the Defendant seeking the return of the purchase price paid as the cause of the claim for the cancellation of the sales contract, on the grounds that the construction function of high temperatures or the effect of reducing fuel costs cannot be achieved, and that there is any defect that does not exist any effect of reducing fuel in the c, C, D, and E that purchased the c, such as the c, and E from the c, the c, D, and E that purchased the c, the c, etc. from the c, the c, and the first instance court dismissed the claim against the Defendant on December 5, 2013 on the ground that the defects of the c, etc. themselves cannot be deemed to have been proven.
B et al. appealed against it and the appellate court (the main office of the Mine High Court 2014Na221, 2014Na238 (Counterclaim)) did not have the quality and performance guaranteed by the Defendant on May 1, 2015 for the following reasons. As such, B et al. purchased the pumps.