beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,418,50 and the following day from February 3, 2018 to June 5, 2018 with respect to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the entire purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number), the plaintiff supplied A, a company voltageing A with Aluminium, and upon Gap's request, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract on May 5, 2017, under which the plaintiff sold Aluminium 18,438 km to the defendant at KRW 50,704,500 (including value-added tax). The above Aluminium was directly supplied to A, and only KRW 20 million was not yet paid, and the remainder was not yet paid. The return was returned to the plaintiff on June 16, 2016 equivalent to KRW 22,286,000, which was the goods supplied under a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the Defendant’s price for the goods to be paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 8,418,500 (the price for the goods KRW 50,704,500 - the amount already paid KRW 22,286,00).
2. The plaintiff asserts that since A had already offset Aluminium returned by A against A’s credit credit, the money equivalent to the return should not be deducted from the price of the goods to be paid by the plaintiff.
The above assertion appears to the effect that the Plaintiff’s credit sales amount claim against A is offset against the Plaintiff’s credit sales amount claim. However, the goods supplied under a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are not parties to a contract, and the goods are not subject to a contract, but are not subject to a contract.
Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.
3. Ultimately, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 8,418,50 for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s payment of KRW 8,418,50 for that, from February 3, 2018 following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order until June 5, 2018, deemed reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation.