beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the business of manufacturing and selling electrical and electronic apparatus, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs the business of manufacturing food, etc.
B. Around 2014, the Plaintiff, Japan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) manufactured and supplied the electric team coos that the Defendant ordered (hereinafter “instant goods”) and the Plaintiff, etc. entered into a continuous commodity supply contract (hereinafter “instant basic contract”) with the content that the Defendant will pay the price for the goods during the following month after ordering the quantity.
C. Article 1 of the instant basic contract states, “The price shall be separately consulted, and the quantity shall be ordered at a minimum of 500 feet unit.” Article 7 of the instant basic contract states, by September 30, 2014, 500 units ordered by the Defendant as ordered by the Plaintiff, etc. are produced and supplied by the Defendant, etc., and among them, 20 units shall be manufactured and supplied by September 15, 2014.
The supply price shall be KRW 600,000 per unit (excluding value-added tax), and shall be finally determined by consultation on the product price, delivery date, the minimum production amount of one month, the maximum production amount of one month, the damages for the delay in the payment period, the damages for failure to pay the minimum production commitment for one month, etc. within September 30, 2014 after the process of the above matters.
"......"
The Plaintiff failed to deliver 500 copies of the instant goods to the Defendant by September 30, 2014, as stipulated in Article 7 of the instant Framework Agreement, and based on the number of returned goods due to defects, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice on September 30, 2014 to the Defendant on February 27, 2015 regarding 122 of the instant goods.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The summary of the cause of the instant claim entered into a contract with the Defendant around 2014 to supply the instant goods to KRW 660,000 per unit (including value-added tax) and the Defendant’s head office from around August 2014 to July 2015.