beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 31,847,020 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 1, 2014 to August 13, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the metal design business, etc., and the Defendant is a person who is engaged in the manufacturing business, such as gold-type, with the trade name B.
B. After the Defendant was requested by ENND (hereinafter “END”) to supply C apartment units, kimchi air conditioning, etc. to be supplied with C apartment units, the Defendant concluded 13,000 won per unit, 13,000 won per unit, 1,392 fresh air conditioning, 200 won per unit, 200 won per unit, 200 won per unit, 4,262 2,245 knbet 2,245 x 200 won per unit, and 32,108,340 won per unit, and 43,000 won per unit x 13,000 won per unit, 200 won per unit x 206 x 240 x 250 x 2620 x 40 x 25 x 20 x 25 5 x 20 x 25 x 40 x 5 x 5 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x x 20 x 5 x x 24 x x x 5 x 24 x x 24 x
C. In accordance with the above contract, the Plaintiff completed the powdering work with respect to the Defendant’s delivery of the dysium, etc. during the period from March 2014 to April 2014, and delivered it to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, witness D's testimony, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the seal payment of KRW 32,108,340 and the delay damages for this, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The Defendant’s assertion asserts that the amount of painting paid in excess of the above contract amount is set off on the amount equal to the amount of the painting price of the above contract, as of April 14, 2014, since the amount of painting paid in transaction with the Plaintiff is KRW 1,135,820, separate from the above contract amount.
Considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements No. 15, No. 15, No. 7, and No. 8, the Defendant’s over-paid seal payment on April 14, 2014, when engaging in a transaction separate from the Plaintiff, was 261,320.