beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From April 2008 to December 201, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with raw materials, such as disks, drums, etc., and then supplied them to the Defendant. From January 2013 to June 2013, the Plaintiff purchased and processed raw materials and supplied them to the Defendant.
B. On January 31, 2009, the Defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 111,077,389 as of December 31, 2008 and deducted the amount equivalent to the total amount from the discretionary processing cost to be paid to the Plaintiff by issuing the tax invoice of KRW 362,139,947 up to 44 times until January 31, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to return the scrap value generated after the completion of the contract, which is different from the initial contract, to the Plaintiff without agreement with the Plaintiff, by unfairly deducting the Plaintiff’s claim for the cost of processing the scrap from the Plaintiff, by offsetting the claim of KRW 362,139,947 against the Defendant without agreement with the Plaintiff, and without any legal cause. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the amount of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff. Even if the amount of unjust enrichment is not constituted, it is not payable for the cost of processing the scrap amount equivalent to the amount of unfair deduction.
In full view of the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness B, the Plaintiff was supplied with raw materials from around April 2008 to the Defendant and processed them, and supplied them to the Defendant and possessed screen scrap generated in the course of the clinical process. The Defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 362,139,947 in total 44 times from January 2009 to January 31, 2013, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the above total amount of money.
However, the defendant's unfair deduction of the value of scrap and unjust enrichment equivalent to the same amount.