beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 477,297,302 as well as 6% per annum from January 21, 2017 to May 30, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures semiconductor equipment, manufactures automation equipment, etc., and the Defendant is a person who manufactures machinery, sells domestic machinery, or exports and imports machinery in the trade name of “B.”
B. From the second half of 2009, the Plaintiff entered into and traded a commodity supply contract with the Defendant for parts (hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”). When the Defendant presented the processing drawing to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff manufactured the parts in accordance with the processing drawing presented by the Defendant and supplied them to the Defendant.
C. On July 9, 2015, the Defendant issued a written confirmation to the Plaintiff that “on July 6, 2015, there is an unpaid amount of KRW 1,028,124,192 as of July 6, 2015” (hereinafter “instant written confirmation”).
(A) prepare and deliver a document / [based on recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, and Eul evidence 2 (if available, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
2. The judgment of this Court
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 1,028,124,192 as the price for goods and delay damages, barring special circumstances.
B. In full view of the purport of the statement in the evidence No. 2 and the argument of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant, after preparing the instant confirmation document, was provided with additional goods equivalent to KRW 349,173,110 from the Plaintiff, and additionally paid the Plaintiff the price of the goods in KRW 900,297,000. According to the above recognition, the Defendant’s payment of the price of the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff remains KRW 477,297,302 (= KRW 1,028,124,192, KRW 349,173,110 - KRW 90,000). 2) The Defendant asserts that, on March 14, 2012, the obligation before the establishment of the Plaintiff corporation should be excluded.
The plaintiff and the defendant are the subject of the written confirmation of this case, and the defendant are the plaintiff corporation.