beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,009,628 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from May 9, 2015 to June 15, 2016, and the next day.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. By April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the original Belgium (veget) in an amount equivalent to KRW 629,282,728.
The Defendant paid 390,000,000 won to the Plaintiff from January 10, 2015 to May 8, 2015.
B. The Defendant, upon receiving the Plaintiff’s supply, performed the processing work such as showing, printing, IM, etc., and sold the goods to other companies.
Shling operations are conducted by making the parts of the body which were maintained as a result of the birth process in a piece of piece, after going through showing operations, and then doing three hostings (the process of dividing the original body that has been treated as a showling into press machine and making the pattern into a press machine) and M (the process of converting the original body that has been treated as a showling). On the other hand, the weight of the original body decreases as well as the parts of the body.
C. The Defendant suggested that the Plaintiff would pay the original amount in lieu of the temporary park group as a result of a financial failure, and that the Plaintiff would pay the original amount in lieu of the temporary park group on June 2015. The Plaintiff accepted this proposal and brought about KRW 2,733 (53,293km) [266(5,187kg, weight 6,650kg), showing and printing, and Ming, which was completed the showing and showing, and Ming, and processing, Section 2,467 (48,106 g, showing, weight 61,67 g, 67 g, and 246,70 g) of the temporary park group around June 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings
2. There was no dispute between the parties’ assertion and the fact that the Defendant provided the home park group to the Plaintiff for the payment of the original cost, but no agreement was reached as to how much the price of the home park group should be calculated.
At the time of sale, the plaintiff asserts that the unit price of the living area of KRW 2,700 per kg was lowered to KRW 2,400 per kg, and that there was no agreement on the processing cost, so the processing cost should not be included.
For this, the defendant is supplied with the unit price kg per 2.