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
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1’s written evidence and arguments as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff engaged in the mechanical parts manufacturing business with the name of “C” entered into a contract for Hls processing with the Defendant “D,” and supplied it to the Defendant on May 14, 2012. At the time, the transaction list issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant can be acknowledged as having been entered in the item column as follows: “H roll production, price of KRW 15,300,000, tax amount of KRW 15,530,000, tax amount of KRW 500,000, tax amount of KRW 500,000, tax amount of KRW 15,80,000, amount of tax, and KRW 17,380,000, total amount of tax, and KRW 17,800,000 in the item column.
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the aggregate of KRW 1,738,00,000 including the value-added tax, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the Hls processing cost and its value-added tax totaling KRW 1,738,00 and its delay damages.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s defense of revocation was signed on the above trading schedule with the intent of the Defendant to consult on the processing cost to be raised later after receiving the goods as a result of considerable delay in the delivery date of the Plaintiff’s work, and thus, the Defendant asserts that the processing price agreement would be revoked by mistake or coercion, as one of the works necessary for the Defendant’s production of the Hls that the Defendant contracted to the Plaintiff was ordered by “F.”
First, the mistake alleged by the defendant is not an expression of intent or a mistake of motive, but an expression of intent not under Article 107 of the Civil Code.
In full view of the statements and the purport of the whole arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant is from F.