beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim claim expanded from the trial, is as follows.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is that the part of “2012.12.2” as stated in the first sentence to “2013.12.” The part of the “2012.12.” as stated in the column of the 11th ground for recognition of the 11st instance judgment is “each testimony of a witness A and B” and the part of “this court” as “each testimony of a witness A and B of the first instance trial” is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court, so this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (Defenses as to the cause of the principal claim and the counterclaim claim seeking payment of the price for the goods) argues that KRW 2,152,705,820, the actual amount of the price for each of the instant clothes supplied by the Defendant pursuant to the instant manufacturing consignment agreement, was calculated by the Defendant as KRW 2,143,262,672 (the price for the goods of this case), but the amount of the unpaid goods was calculated as KRW 2,152,705,820, the actual amount of the unpaid goods.
However, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff for the price of goods shall be calculated on the basis of the price of the goods in this case as the defendant seeks.
From the perspective of deducting the total sum of each clean (including value-added tax) set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) 2,290,618,646 won (i.e., KRW 1,856,093,965 won 319,957,315 won 50,546,738 won, KRW 25,273,369 won, KRW 38,747,259), the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the goods is extinguished, and there is no obligation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the payment of the goods under the above manufacturing consignment agreement.
The plaintiff seeks confirmation as the principal lawsuit.
1. The Defendant’s delay in the delivery period of each of the instant items to the Plaintiff and caused the delay in the delivery period of the instant items to the Plaintiff in the instant logistics warehouse under the contract for quality control refers to the compensation for delay on the ground of the delay in the delivery period of the instant goods under Article 7(6).