beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,144,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 8, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 2016, the Plaintiff used the position of “director” of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (Representative C; hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and made up 20,000 bags where the Plaintiff attached the trademark E in accordance with the OEM production method (OEM production method; hereinafter “E bank”) and supplied it to the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company concluded a goods supply contract with the terms that the Plaintiff shall pay 1,040,000 won for each unit price (52,000 won for each unit price, and value added tax separately) by November 30, 2016. After that, on September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared a goods supply contract with the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff as the buyer and the Defendant Company, and prepared the said terms and conditions as above in the form of goods supply contract (Evidence A2).
(However, the date will be recorded retrospectively on January 4, 2016). (b)
According to the above commodity supply contract, the Plaintiff manufactured E bags on September 22, 201, and supplied 20,01 (including 32 sample products supplied on August 2016) in total to the Defendant Company, including 6,741, and 6,739, and 6,499, on September 6, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Class A 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, 14, and 17; the witness F's testimony; the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company
A. According to the facts found above, barring special circumstances, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,144,000,000 (value 1,040,000,000 value-added tax of KRW 104,00,000) for the goods and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 8, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is obvious that the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served on the Defendant.
B. Determination 1 on the Defendant Company’s assertion 1) The summary of the argument is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, around September 2016, created the instant case E in advance; and (b) the Defendant Company.