beta
Text
1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who exceeds the following amount ordering payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase used machinery as indicated in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant machinery”) from the Defendant with the purchase price of KRW 210,00,000, and the delivery period of KRW 60 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and its main contents are as follows.
Article 4 The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 160,000,000 won as machinery price, and the above amount shall be deducted from 210,000,000 won as price under Article 1.
Any balance shall be 50,000,000 won after the completion of a trial operation.
Article 6 The defendant shall be liable to the plaintiff for the installation of machinery and the trial run.
B. According to the instant sales contract, the Defendant began to install the instant machinery at the Plaintiff’s factory B, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 160,000,000 to the Defendant, respectively, on September 2, 2014, and KRW 40,000,000 on November 9, 2014.
C. On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant added the female painting, mixing, etc. to the subject matter of sale, agreed to increase the purchase price of KRW 10,000,000, and to change “65 meters” from the subject matter of sale to “68 meters” from the subject matter of sale, and added its content to the sales contract of this case.
(A) On December 11, 2014, the contract provides for a trial operation commitment by November 2, 2014 under the contract, but has not been implemented until December 11, 2014, the Pvctension 1 set up in B, one motor vehicle for which the Pvctension is installed, and the one motor vehicle for which the Pvctension cirr is installed, and the promise is to be performed by December 17, 2014, by December 17, 2014, the replacement commitment for the replacement of the scrap (the replacement is completed by January 30, 2015, as required for the manufacture of the scrap, and by January 17, 2015).
D. On December 11, 2014, the Defendant drafted a letter with the following content to the Plaintiff.
E. On December 23, 2014, the Defendant had the Plaintiff operate the machines installed in the B factory up to January 10, 2015, and, if so, failed to operate.