beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,537,060 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 8, 2013 to December 19, 2013, and the following.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the processing and manufacturing of industrial fibres, and the Defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacturing and selling of carbon-proof products. 2) On June 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) around 2012, the Plaintiff: (b) around 36% of the raw materials required for the manufacturing of carbon-proof explosives from the Defendant; (c) around 135,000 from the Defendant, 36% of the raw materials required for the manufacturing of carbon-proof equipment; (d) KRW 2,700 of the raw materials required for the manufacturing of carbon-proof explosives from the Defendant; and (e) the delivery deadline was determined by the period of November 30, 201 and then delivered the processed materials until November 30, 2011.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining amount of the processing fee of KRW 32,967,060 and damages for delay to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of set-off
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) In short, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to observe the delivery term, and the Plaintiff subcontracted 36% biphenyl resin processing work to other companies, and there was a defect in which 2,400 m2,400 m2, which was cut off from the company. 2) The Defendant caused a defect in the carbonproof equipment manufactured using it, thereby failing to supply 3,195 m3,195 m2 to the main office, thereby incurring damages equivalent to KRW 92,079,90 in total (i.e., 3,195 x 28,820 x 28,820 x 127,735,831 won for delay in delivery.
3) If the Defendant’s damage claim is offset against the Plaintiff’s remainder of the clinical processing fee claim, the Defendant’s clinical processing fee to be paid does not remain any longer. (B) Determination 1) The fact that there was a defect in which the Plaintiff did not properly process 2,400 meters of the chlorool lusium, which the Plaintiff sawd and processed, does not dispute this.
2. However, this defect has become the cause of the defect that occurred in the U.S. F. H. carnets manufactured by the Defendant.