beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 168,725,650 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from April 2, 2015 to October 21, 2015.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff (mutual name: C) was requested by the Defendant (mutual name): on July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a gold-processing machine production contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant gold-processing contract”). From around that time to June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff (mutual name: C) completed the production of gold-making equivalent to KRW 388,725,650 (the first agreement was made for KRW 300 million (value added tax but the additional amount was incurred due to the correction of gold-making upon the Defendant’s request).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-8 evidence (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 168,725,650 won remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 220,000,000, which the plaintiff voluntarily acknowledged as having received reimbursement from the plaintiff among the above 388,725,650, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The defendant's defense 1 is because defects occurred in the process of manufacturing the gold-type product manufactured by the plaintiff, and the cause is problematic in the process of gold-type or withdrawal produced by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's defense that the defendant may refuse to pay the price to the plaintiff on the ground of such defects.
The defendant received a request from the company "A" to supply food processing machine to the plaintiff, and requested the plaintiff to manufacture the paper for the manufacture of the paper. The plaintiff introduced the company in charge of the production of the paper for convenience to the defendant. The defendant made the plaintiff to produce the paper and conducted the collection of the paper using the paper through the company, and the defendant got the plaintiff to produce the paper for convenience, and the product was destroyed in the process of producing the food processing machine products. Accordingly, the problem was caused by the failure to meet the ingredients of the product in the process of producing the food processing machine, and accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant's opinion on the selection of the product's location, etc.