beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On November 201 through December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) was subcontracted with the gold-type manufacture of automobile parts from the Hansavian Mutual Aid Co., Ltd. (the primary partner of the Taesa Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Korea”) and re-subcontracted the payment for re-subcontract to the Defendant from December 2, 2014 to February 2015 by determining the re-subcontract as “70% of the amount subcontracted by Hansa to the Defendant (hereinafter “re-subcontract in this case”).
However, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay the production price of KRW 170 million after completing the production of the gold of KRW 90% for the gold of KRW 90% and the gold of KRW 20% for the gold of KRW 60% for the gold of KRW 170 million for the Plaintiff. In order to meet the production date for Hana, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 170 million for the re-subcontract at the later settlement date on March 24, 2015.
Since then, with respect to the gold-type 11 sets that the Plaintiff re-subcontracted to the Defendant, the amount of the subcontract that the Plaintiff received from Hanra was set at KRW 370 million (i.e., KRW 100 million on the premise that the total amount of the gold-type 9 sets that was completed by 90% was completed by 100% on the premise that the total amount of the gold-type 2 sets that was completed by 350 million won was completed by 100% on the premise that the total amount of the gold-type 3.5 million won was completed, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 166,656,00 at the private materials cost.
Therefore, the re-subcontract price of this case that the Plaintiff is actually obligated to pay to the Defendant is KRW 68,94,00 [=230,000 won + KRW 21,350,000 + KRW 250,000 + KRW 3500,000 x 70%) ¡¿ 90% x 4,550,000 (=65 million x 70%) ¡¿ 60% - 166,656,00 won] x the Defendant paid KRW 17,00,06,000 (=1770,000 won - KRW 68,94,94,00) and damages for delay.
2. In order to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on the determination, the re-subcontract of the instant case is determined as “70% of the subcontract price that the Plaintiff subcontracted from Hanra - Private water supply materials cost,” and the Defendant’s gold-type 90% of the subcontract price of the instant case, and the gold-type 60% of the subcontract price of the two set.