beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 75,802,476 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from December 17, 2014 to November 25, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that manufactures and sells products related to ELD, and the Defendant is a corporation that engages in the export and import business of ELD products.
B. At the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff manufactured and supplied products such as ELD lighting between April 28, 2014 and December 16, 2014.
C. The sum of the price for the products supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as above is KRW 214,102,476 (from KRW 222,902,476, the sum of the price claimed by the Plaintiff, excluding KRW 8,800,000, out of the tax invoice dated December 16, 2014), and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 138,30,000,000 in total as the price for the products.
(A) The Defendant paid KRW 137,300,000 in total prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, and additionally paid KRW 1,00,000 on October 26, 2015, which was subsequent to the filing of the instant lawsuit. / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 11, 19, 24 (including the number of each branch number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination
A. According to the facts found above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 75,802,476 (=214,102,476) - 138,300,000) and delay damages.
B. The Plaintiff claimed 400 YPL products manufactured at the Defendant’s request in addition to 8,800,000 won, and thus, the Plaintiff did not deliver the above products to the Defendant. There is no dispute between the parties. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff provided complete performance for the supply of the above YPL products by completing 400 parts of the YP products, but the Defendant refused to accept it. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence No. 16 was a sampling product and the above evidence alone constituted a sampling product and the Plaintiff completed 400 parts of the YPL product. Rather, according to the evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff’s products on December 16, 2014.