beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 8, 2010, the Defendant: (a) requested production of the gold-type KRW 37,500,000, respectively, on April 9, 2010 as of the date of the test of the Defendant (the place of order) and April 9, 2010 as of April 2010, in order to deliver the gold-type 2 gold-type 2 sheet (hereinafter “the gold-type”) to the Japanese trading company (hereinafter “the gold-type contract”); and (b) written order, the Plaintiff (the producer) may claim payment from the Defendant when he supplies the gold-type to the trading company without penalty.
B. At the end of March 2010, the Plaintiff was provided by the Defendant with a design map and a presiding agent necessary for the production of the instant gold bullion, and was in the production of the said gold bullion, on April 5, 2010, the Plaintiff discontinued the production due to personal circumstances, and delivered the instant gold bullion (hereinafter “the instant gold penalty”) to the Defendant, which is still complete, to the Defendant. The Defendant, upon delivery from the Plaintiff of the instant gold penalty, proceeded with the remaining process through his/her employees, etc. at his/her place of business and delivered the said gold penalty to the Japan’s business entity on May 2010 after the completion of the last process through the launch of the test.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 is merely 3,904,548 won which was incurred by the defendant in completing the remaining process after being transferred to the plaintiff from the plaintiff. This means that the progress rate of the plaintiff at the time of transfer was at least 85%, and thus, the defendant is remuneration under the gold production contract of this case calculated by deducting 4,900,000,000, design drawing cost from 37,500,000,000, and 3,904,548,000, which was paid by the defendant from 26,695,452, less 5,00,000,000, which was paid to the plaintiff from the defendant.