beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,038,100 and KRW 5% per annum from October 27, 2014 to December 15, 2016 and the following day shall be the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From March 29, 2014 to May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant, who operates the fibering business, with the trade name “B”, to do so; (b) 33,338 gate 33,38 gate; (c) the Plaintiff, without processing, returned to the Plaintiff; and (d) the Defendant supplied 15,776 gate by August 1, 2014.
B. Meanwhile, the Defendant, up to August 1, 2014, did not receive the payment from the Plaintiff for the co-rating processing fee of KRW 4,771,800.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) Inasmuch as ices have occurred in the original body that the Plaintiff saw and supplied by the Defendant, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by 68,060,761 won. 2) The Defendant did not have any defect in melting process in the original body that the Defendant displayed by the Defendant.
Even if a defect occurred, the Plaintiff re-printed the unpaid co-building processing fee of the original unit released to the Defendant, and the returned original unit, but paid a total of KRW 6,836,280, and a total of KRW 11,608,08,080 for the Defendant’s 5,179 should be paid to the Defendant. Thus, if the Defendant’s above co-building processing fee claim against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s damage claim against the Defendant are offset against the amount on an equal basis, there is no amount of damages paid to the Plaintiff.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by each evidence, evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 10, evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 10, witness C, and D’s testimony, appraiser C’s appraisal, and the result of the expert appraisal and supplementation, it is reasonable to deem that the defects of ice, etc., generated in the original part of this case, were the defects that occurred during the Defendant’s hosting process, and thus, the Defendant incurred damages to the Plaintiff.