beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 73,318,953 as well as its annual 6% from October 9, 2013 to September 17, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, the purpose of which is to wholesale and retail business, etc., supplied cosmetics, etc. to the Defendant who runs the wholesale and retail business, etc. from July 2010 to May 13, 2013, using the trade name “B”. On April 29, 2013, the Plaintiff deducted KRW 14,538,928 from the value of the goods returned by the Defendant, thereby failing to receive the price of KRW 77,796,861.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1-3, 6 (Additional Number omitted), the purport of all pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant agreed to deduct total of KRW 19,016,836 from the price of the goods due to return between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on April 29, 2013. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 4,477,908 (=19,016,836 - 14,538,928) should be deducted from the price of the goods.
In regard to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the goods equivalent to KRW 4,477,891, as claimed by the Defendant, are supplied to the Defendant as a master for the test in KRW 2,238,945, which are 50% of the value of the same kind of goods that were supplied to the Defendant, and that the goods cannot be returned because they were used as a master for the test and did not have any greenhouse value as the goods, so they should not be deducted from the price of
In light of Gap evidence and Eul evidence No. 9 and Eul evidence No. 1, although the plaintiff could easily have known a considerable number of posters among the goods returned by the defendant on April 29, 2013, the plaintiff's Eul signed the name in the column of the acquirer of the transaction list of KRW 9,640,256 and KRW 9,376,580, which the defendant prepared, and the purport of Gap evidence No. 5 was added to the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff's transfer from the defendant without compensation for the distribution right of the plaintiff brand products from the defendant around April 2013, can be confirmed sufficiently by the fact that the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to deduct KRW 19,016,836, which is the aggregate of the amount stated in the above transaction statement from the price of the goods to the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.
B. The defendant also has Sson, Watson.