beta
Text
1. As to KRW 17,150,797 and KRW 12,634,211 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4,516,586.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity engaging in the wholesale and retail business of drugs and medical instruments. The Defendant is a legal entity engaged in the trade business of drugs and medical instruments, warehouse business, wholesale business, marketing, dispatch and distribution business, etc. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive drugs, etc. from June 2004 (hereinafter “instant contract”), and supplied drugs, etc. from the Defendant to the hospital, pharmacy, etc.
B. On October 21, 2011, the Plaintiff started rehabilitation procedures by the Seoul Central District Court 201 Gohap125 decided to commence rehabilitation procedures, and on June 29, 2015, the rehabilitation procedures were completed.
[Grounds] The Plaintiff asserted unjust enrichment based on the difference between the actual supply unit price and the amount of tax invoice issued in accordance with the contract of this case and the actual supply unit price. The Plaintiff supplied part of the drugs purchased from the Defendant to the National University Hospital, Samsung Medical Center, etc. The Plaintiff agreed to provide the amount equivalent to 75-93% of the health insurance benefit of the relevant drugs by item. However, the Defendant issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff by providing the said drugs to the Plaintiff at an amount equivalent to 95% of the health insurance benefit of the relevant drugs by item. Since the Plaintiff paid the amount under the above tax invoice, the Defendant is obligated to return 256,571,868 won, which is the difference between the price actually agreed upon to the Plaintiff and the amount under the tax invoice.
Judgment
The difference between the pharmaceutical price on the tax invoice for the pharmaceutical product supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and the price of the pharmaceutical product discounted upon consultation between the pharmaceutical products manufacturers and hospitals is not in dispute between the parties concerned, as alleged by the Plaintiff.
However, each statement of Gap evidence 4 to 7 and testimony of Gap witness is alone.