beta
Text
1. A plaintiff (a counterclaim defendant) who ordered payment in excess of the following amount out of the part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment.
Reasons
The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The following shall be added between "the same 12 pages 4 and 5" and "the defendant" in the part added or changed:
In addition to the whole purport of the pleading in the statement No. 40, the above agency sales price is a price equivalent to approximately 50% of the fixed price stated in the product's tag, which is ".........................................." is "..........(b)" in the statement of refusal to take over the product, "............................, the defendant added following the 14th page 12....... because the defendant could not pay monthly wages to the workers of the Vietnam factory due to the late payment of the prices of the products and the 2014 spring products from the plaintiff, it asserts that the worker is not liable for delay in the supply of the product or delayed delivery due to the wind of 2014..
It is not enough to acknowledge the above assertion solely on the basis of the statement No. 9-2, 3, and 4 and the examination results of the defendant representative of the court of first instance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the above basic facts, Gap evidence 9-1, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 28-1 through 4, and the following circumstances revealed as a result of examination on the defendant representative of the court of first instance, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff delayed the delivery of oil products by late payment of the price for the goods in 2013 and the spring goods in 2014.
(1) The defendant shall be the defendant on March 2013.