logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.10.23 2017나7888
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

Facts of recognition

On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a “OEM product supply contract” with the Defendant (Co., Ltd.) (hereinafter “instant supply contract”). The main contents of the contract were to request the Plaintiff to produce the products planned and designed by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was to supply the products to the Defendant.

On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the incidental agreement on the instant supply contract (hereinafter “instant incidental agreement”), and the supply price for the Defendant of the C Product to be produced by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant Product”) was set at KRW 15,000 per unit product (80ml x 50ml x value-added tax).

From September 30, 2014 to March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff produced and supplied to the Defendant the instant product worth KRW 298,193,390 in total in accordance with the instant supply contract.

The Defendant paid 284,320,830 won out of the above goods price to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the facts of the above recognition as to the ground for a claim as to the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 13,872,560 won for the remainder of the goods under the supply contract of this case and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 11, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the defendant.

Although the defendant's argument that the price for the goods claimed in excess of the judgment on the defendant's argument should be deducted from the unit agreement of this case, the plaintiff set the unit price at KRW 15,000, the plaintiff demanded the price for the goods by arbitrarily raising the unit price at KRW 16,000 from November 28, 2014.

Goods price corresponding to the portion raised voluntarily by the plaintiff shall be deducted.

arrow