beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 185,526,50 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from February 28, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures electric lighting fixtures and engages in wholesale and retail business, and the Defendant is a company that engages in civil engineering and construction business, electricity construction business, etc.
B. 1) The Defendant is Daeil Electricity Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Moil Electricity”).
In collaboration with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on October 28, 201, Section A (hereinafter “instant construction”) for electrical construction works from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).
(2) The instant construction is composed of electrical construction and fire fighting construction. The instant construction is composed of two contracts between the Defendant and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation under joint contract with the instant construction, the electrical construction is divided into 70% by large electricity, the Defendant’s joint performance rate of 30%, and the fire fighting construction is agreed to implement 100% by the Defendant.
C. The Plaintiff supplied lighting fixtures over several occasions from June 25, 2013 to November 29, 2013 at the instant construction site.
[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the goods
A. The plaintiff asserts that, since the plaintiff entered into a purchase contract with the defendant and supplied lighting fixtures at the construction site of this case and did not receive KRW 185,526,50,00, the defendant is liable to pay the price of the goods unpaid to the plaintiff.
In regard to this, the Defendant did not conclude a purchase contract with the Plaintiff that the Defendant would be supplied with the lighting fixtures, and the Defendant did not pay 30% of the electrical construction that the Defendant agreed to do to do to the Plaintiff during the instant construction, and did not directly do so. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that it did not have any obligation to pay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff.
B. The above evidence and evidence Nos. 3-1 through 7, 4, and 5 [Defendant]’s goods supply contract (the Defendant’s name of Defendant No. 5 was forged).