beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part concerning the 4th to 6th to 16th to 4th 10 of the court's decision of the first instance ("... defendant's decision on defenses") as stated in the reasoning of the court's decision of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part of the defendant's assertion "C. Judgment on the defendant's defense 1) The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion was requested by the Shepherus Korea, the ordering business entity, to reduce water processing process, and the defendant newly constructed a factory under the Shephers Korea 838-9 in the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan City and additionally purchased the automation facility called the machine learning center. Accordingly, the plaintiff's processing process has decreased and the production has increased due to the decrease in time and cost.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the processing fees in the amount of the electronic tax invoice issued each month after April 2013, and accordingly, the Defendant paid all the processing fees agreed upon to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant does not have the obligation to pay the unpaid processing fees to the plaintiff.
(2) At the trial, the Plaintiff and the Defendant explicitly withdrawn the allegation that they agreed to adjust the unit price of the rent to 200 won. 2) The fact that the Plaintiff supplied parts of the automobile to the Defendant (six-high wheels), April 103, 200, May 86, 2013, June 103, 2013, June 103, 20293, July 110, 293, 2013, August 93, 2013, 60, and September 102, 60, October 126, 2013, and September 126, 2013, from October 131, 2013 to 31.31, 2013, including the electronic tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff, are without dispute between the parties. According to subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 2, the amount of the automobile supplied to the Defendant from 31, 2013.