beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,975,263 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from April 12, 2016 to February 8, 2018.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of windows, glass construction, and sales in the name of “B”. If the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a “statement of order for glass and construction to be supplied to the Plaintiff,” and sent the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared a “statement of transaction” stating the unit price, quantity, and total amount of glass to be supplied on the basis of the statement of order for glass; and (b) supplied and constructed glass; (c) subsequently, the Plaintiff supplied and constructed glass to the Plaintiff from March 20, 2014 to January 26, 2015; and (d) supplied and constructed glass to the Defendant from March 20, 2014 to January 26, 2015; (c) the aggregate value of the supplied glass (i.e., 128,398,940 won in supply price indicated in the trading list; and (d) the supply price was not recognized.
3) The Plaintiff voluntarily recognizes the fact that the Defendant received KRW 77,463,67 of the price of goods from the Defendant. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 49,975,263 (i.e., KRW 127,438,940 - 77,463,677) and delay damages therefrom, barring special circumstances.
C. On February 2014, the Defendant asserts that, in calculating the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff offered a multiple-story unit price table to the Defendant and decided to make a transaction based on the unit price, and that, when calculating the price by applying the multiple-story unit price table, the price of the supplied glass is the total of KRW 101,419,048.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statement Nos. 3 and 1, are as follows: ① The name of glass listed in the multi-story unit price list is considerably different from the name and specification of glass listed in the trading statement; thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to the unit price stated in the multi-story unit price list.