본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
수원지방법원 2018.05.17 2017나6655

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relevant Plaintiff of the Party (the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. prior to the change) is a company aimed at manufacturing and selling industrial machinery.

Defendant is engaged in mechanical manufacturing work with the trade name called B.

B. The Plaintiff related to processing processed and supplied parts, etc. to the Defendant by February 29, 2016.

On June 7, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 8,056,641 to the Defendant for the processing cost, and the Defendant paid KRW 466,641 to the Plaintiff on June 15, 2016, excluding KRW 7,590,000,000, out of the said money.

C. 1) On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C to set the contract for the electrical construction of the SPC material automatic storage equipment up to KRW 40 million for the period and December 21, 2015. (2) On April 11, 2016, C entered into a contract with the Defendant to enter into a contract with the effect that: (a) the Defendant enter into a contract with the effect that the production of the system amounting to KRW 11 million for the release of D materials and the manufacture of the system.

Under the above contract, the Defendant partially established the PC circuit program (hereinafter “instant program”) in the Plaintiff Company.

3) The construction contract between the Plaintiff and C under the foregoing paragraph (1) was rescinded on May 2016.

4) Around May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendant to enter into a DPC program development agreement, but the contract was not concluded. The Defendant, on May 9, 2016, demanded the Plaintiff to use the instant program before the Plaintiff proceed with another company, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would claim for royalties of KRW 300,000 per day since the program development agreement was not entered into and incurred losses. 5) On June 3, 2016, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff Company to delete the instant program.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 7, and 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant shall be unpaid to the plaintiff.