beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 3,151,00 with full payment from September 22, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) received a contract from the Defendant who is engaged in the business of manufacturing rubber storm lines with the trade name of rubber C at the unit price of KRW 1,300 per dog (Additional Tax) 5,700 per dog (hereinafter “instant goods”); and (b) completed the instant work.
B. The Plaintiff received KRW 5,00,000,000, out of the Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000, from Nonparty D, who performed the annual work of the instant goods.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim on the main claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,151,000 won (=(1,300 won x 5,700 won x 1.1) - 5,00,000 won) and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 22, 2016 to the date of complete payment, as the plaintiff seeks.
The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the service cost, since the Defendant ordered D to contract all the gold and tobacco of this case to D with the service cost of KRW 10,00,000,000. However, according to the statement in the evidence No. 5, it is recognized that the Plaintiff signed the Plaintiff’s employee on the transaction specification sheet issued by the Plaintiff as the supplier, and the Plaintiff who claimed the service cost for the part of the Plaintiff’s work separately and claimed the service cost for the portion of the Plaintiff’s work, and the Defendant appears to have no practical benefits to make the aforementioned assertion. Therefore, the Defendant
3. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff and D should jointly and severally compensate the defendant for the damages equivalent to the above amount as a result of disposing of the goods of this case due to defects in the tobacco or gold processing of the goods of this case, and that the plaintiff and D should jointly and severally compensate for the damages caused by the destruction of the goods of this case. However, the entries and images of the evidence No. 1 of this case alone are defects in the plaintiff's gold processing.