beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;
2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 79,350,624 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. We examine, ex officio, whether a counterclaim is lawful or not.
A defendant may, only if it does not remarkably delay the litigation procedures, file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal lawsuit is pending not later than the closure of pleadings.
(Article 269(1) main text of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the Defendant filed the instant counterclaim on August 9, 2017 after the lapse of June 13, 2017, which was the date of closing the argument.
Therefore, the counterclaim of this case is inappropriate as being raised after the closing of argument, and thus, it is dismissed without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. Determination 1 as to the cause of the claim 1) The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with household goods worth KRW 6,952,325 on June 13, 2016 (items: Large head Kabs Gabs Gabs Bads) and supplied household goods worth KRW 41,789,792 on June 27, 2016, and supplied household goods worth KRW 41,804,640 on July 5, 2016 (Items Kabs Bads, Skids, Skids, and Blus) to the Defendant, and then supplied household goods worth KRW 47,560,832 on July 20, 2016.
B) The Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on August 30, 2016, and August 31, 2016 as the price for the supply of leathers. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 79,350,624 (=(41,789,792 + KRW 47,560,832), which is the price for the supply of leathers unpaid to the Plaintiff, + KRW 41,789,792 + KRW 47,560,832),-10,000,000 from the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served by the Plaintiff, to the day when the Defendant becomes liable for dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to pay the Defendant’s annual damages from the day after August 7, 2017, 2017.
B. The defendant's assertion