beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including household numbers), the plaintiff supplied a total of KRW 62,082,350 (PT-100) to the defendant from May 31, 2014 to December 1, 2015, and the defendant paid KRW 46,519,40 to the plaintiff from September 2014 to January 2016. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 15,562,950 and delay damages.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff supplied the defective products, the price of the defective products should be reduced from the price of the above products.
However, it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Plaintiff supplied defective products only with the evidence submitted by the Defendant and the testimony by the witness C of the first instance trial.
(The defendant did not specify the quantity of defective products, and instead issued the inspection report on the size and specification of the products supplied by the plaintiff. In addition, as a result of the party appraisal, the opinion was submitted that the PT-100 cents of the instant PT-100 cents of the instant case are shocked so as not to cause any phenomenon, and that the low resistance value is realized due to temperature changes). The above argument by the defendant is without merit.
(In addition, even if the defendant's assertion that the obligation to pay the price of the goods remains, it is not possible to meet the requirements for the cancellation of the contract even if the defendant's argument is made to cancel the contract.
Therefore, the Defendant’s claim as to the amount of KRW 15,562,950 payable to the Plaintiff as well as the amount of KRW 15,56,950 after the date of the above final delivery is set by the Special Act on the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc. from July 19, 2016 to March 28, 2019, where the Defendant’s claim as to the existence and scope of the obligation is a considerable amount of dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation.