beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,443,785 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from March 11, 2015 to December 10, 2015, and the following.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff supplied cosmetics equivalent to KRW 56,889,305 to the Defendant around February 2015, and the fact that the Defendant repaid KRW 9,445,520 among the above payments does not conflict between the parties.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the remainder.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant alleged that defects occurred in cosmetics imported and supplied by the plaintiff, and those cosmetics were illegally sold without quality inspection and thus it is impossible to sell them domestically. Thus, the defendant asserts that the products kept by the defendant are all recovered by the plaintiff, and therefore, KRW 12,626,240, which is equivalent to the price of the goods shall be deducted from the plaintiff's claim for the price of the goods
As to this, the plaintiff's assertion of defect in the product is not possible to sell cosmetics because it did not undergo a quality inspection.
The plaintiff asserts that there is no obligation to recover the remaining articles.
B. The defect in the cosmetics supplied by the Plaintiff was discovered solely on the basis of the descriptions in the evidence Nos. 4-1, 4, 5-1, 2, 3, and 6-2 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 5-1, 5-2, and 6-2
It is insufficient to recognize that the defect alleged by the Defendant was responsible for the Plaintiff.
Furthermore, it is not sufficient to prove that the product alleged that the defect occurred among the inventory list (Evidence B No. 9) submitted by the Defendant was included in the inventory list (Evidence B) submitted by the Defendant, equivalent to KRW 93,170 per each PHAart Mcream, equivalent to KRW 52,030, and KRW 14,57,380 per joint venture, and KRW 457,380 per joint venture, as well as evidence that all cosmetics kept by the Defendant, including these were defective.
This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
C. Determination as to the assertion of violation of Acts and subordinate statutes