beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,765,00 and the following day shall be 5% per annum from April 2, 2016 to February 7, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is engaged in manufacturing and selling heating apparatus under the trade name of "C", and the defendant is engaged in processing metal parts in the trade name of "D."
B. (1) On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) presented and delivered samples, such as the oars, which are the heating equipment accessories, to the Defendant; and (b) requested the Defendant to produce and supply 25,000 won per unit (hereinafter “instant contract”); and (c) on November 18, 2015, the Defendant supplied 102 oars to the Plaintiff.
(2) The Plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 2,805,00 to the Defendant, including the amount of KRW 1250,000 on November 4, 2015 and KRW 1,55,00 on November 23, 2015.
C. (1) The Plaintiff assembled and manufactured the heating apparatus by using the Defendant’s strings produced and supplied by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s strings too deep so that it does not accurately coincide with strings to prevent the strings by using the strings. In addition, when inserting the strings into the strings, the Plaintiff could not use other parts on the rest of the strings.
(2) If the enjoying hole is not properly prevented, fuel and air are mixed, and it does not operate properly the heating apparatus due to the lack of combustion.
(3) After dismantling the heating apparatus, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the fluoral defect, and the Defendant supplied the fluort so as to accurately match the fluoral and the fluoral hole, and the fluor and the fluore-fluor did not fit the fluoral and the fluore-fluor.
On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to newly produce and supply 50 Nowhn 50 to the Defendant, which was supplied by the Defendant, but did not accurately match with Nown ewn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn
E. (1) On December 29, 2015, the Defendant written to the Plaintiff a certificate of acceptance that the enjoying cost supplied to the Plaintiff was not produced in the same manner as the Plaintiff’s order, and that the enjoying cost was taken over for the correction work.