beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the grounds for the claims, the written evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment as to the grounds for the claims, the Plaintiff is recognized as having produced and supplied, respectively, the penalty equivalent to KRW 28,710,000 from September 3, 2014 to October 2, 2014, and the penalty equivalent to KRW 3,700,000 from January 30 to February 4, 2015.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 7,08,625 won (=28,710,000 won - 25,401,375 won) excluding 25,401,375 won (28,710,000 won - 25,401,375 won) and damages for delay determined at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from April 10, 2015 to November 8, 2016, when the original copy of the instant payment order was delivered to the defendant from April 10, 2015 to November 8, 2016, and from the following day to the date of full payment.
As to the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant did not deliver 3D drawings out of the design drawings while manufacturing and supplying gold paper to the Defendant, so the Plaintiff should return KRW 15,950,000 equivalent to the above design cost out of the price of goods to the Defendant as unjust enrichment, and thus, offset this against the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods.
The defendant's obligation to pay the price of the goods equivalent to the above design cost is asserted to the effect that the due date has not arrived.
The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the delivery of 3D drawings is included in the contents of the contract. The above assertion based on the premise that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it is without merit.
The defendant asserts that there is a defect that requires repair costs equivalent to KRW 600,000 for the goods supplied by the plaintiff, and thus, it should be deducted from the price of the goods. However, the above assertion is recognized only by the description of the evidence No. 2.