beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The counterclaim Defendant 24,380,701 won against the counterclaim and 23,000.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The court's explanation on this part of the assertion by the Counterclaim is identical to the statement of the second claim among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Determination
A. As to the claim for damages arising from the delay of delivery, the Plaintiff asserted that the counterclaim Defendant shall be held liable for delay due to the non-compliance Defendant’s failure to comply with the demand, even though the date of February 2012 was designated as the payment period and demanded the delivery from time to April 2012 thereafter, even though the counterclaim Defendant demanded the delivery from time to time until April 2012. As such, first of all, we examine whether the Counterclaim Plaintiff requested the delivery by designating the last day of February 2012 as the payment period.
The aforementioned evidence and evidence revealed as follows, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 10-1 and 2, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole. In other words, even after the completion of both air-shielded air-shielding condition processing contract around February 2012, the opposing plaintiff paid to the opposing defendant 30 million won (as of February 29, 2012; as of March 12, 2012; as of March 15, 2012; as of March 15, 2012; as of March 21, 2012, it is difficult to conclude that the opposing plaintiff was not the opposing plaintiff's trust at the time of the expiration of the contract between the opposing plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, 2012.