beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 142,788,669 as well as 6% per annum from May 1, 2016 to June 2, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. (1) The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures electronic parts, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells automobile products and parts.
B. Between September 2015 and March 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with motor vehicle parts, such as the interior light, headlights, tails, and low fluorse fluorse fluors (hereinafter “instant goods”), 191,788,669 won, and received KRW 49,00,000 from the Defendant, and did not receive the remainder of the goods at KRW 142,78,669.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1 to 5, Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 7-1 and 7-2, and purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 142,788,669, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 1, 2016 to June 2, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the assertion that the period of reimbursement has yet to expire constitutes a production supply contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s inspection by the Defendant, such as whether the instant goods were defective, etc., may receive the price of the instant goods to be the time when the Defendant completed the contract. However, since the Defendant did not have any awareness that the goods produced and supplied by the Plaintiff were completed, the payment period for the instant goods has not yet arrived. Accordingly, the Defendant is not liable to pay the remaining price of the instant goods to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the lower court’s determination was based on the facts acknowledged as above, the above recognized evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in Gap evidence No. 6.