Mokpo Civil Litigation Attorney Assistance Case | Plaintiff's Claim Dismissed in a Lawsuit for the Price of Goods

The client, who came to the civil litigation attorney at the Mokpo office, was engaged in the food manufacturing and sales business, while the plaintiff who filed this lawsuit was engaged in the manufacturing and sales business for food machinery and the like.

The client entrusted the plaintiff with the manufacture of 7 food machines and entered into a manufacturing-equipment contract.

When the plaintiff failed to deliver the machines even as the delivery deadline approached, the client contacted the plaintiff several times and requested that the deadline be met.

However, the plaintiff delivered the goods only after the delivery date specified in the contract, and upon inspection, as many as 5 of the 7 machines did not operate properly.

Because the machines, delivered late, did not even operate properly, the client intended to demand that the plaintiff pay liquidated damages for delay or damages.

However, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding payment of the price of goods, claiming that, because the machines had already been delivered, the balance had to be paid and that the client should pay the unpaid amount.

The client then requested a consultation on the civil lawsuit from a specialist attorney at the Mokpo office in order to obtain assistance.

Civil Act, Article 664 (Definition of Contract for Work)

A contract for work shall take effect when one party agrees to complete a certain work and the other party agrees to pay remuneration for the result of the work.

Civil Act, Article 665 (Time for Payment of Remuneration)

(1) Remuneration shall be paid simultaneously with the delivery of the completed object. However, where delivery of the object is not required, it shall be paid without delay after the work is completed.

According to Supreme Court precedent

'Delivery of the object' does not mean a mere transfer of possession; it also includes the party ordering the work, after inspecting the object, expressly or impliedly acknowledging that the object has been completed in accordance with the terms of the contract.

In a contract for work, the burden of asserting and proving the completion of the work rests on the contractor who claims payment of remuneration for the result of the work.

The contractor must assert and prove not only that the final process specified in the contract for the manufacture of the object has been completed, but also that the principal structural parts of the object have been constructed as agreed and possess the performance generally required under sound social norms.

According to Supreme Court precedent, the plaintiff, as the contractor, must prove that he constructed the machines as agreed in the contract and that they possess the performance generally required under sound social norms.

However, because more than half of the machines the plaintiff delivered to the client did not operate properly, the client argued that he was not obligated to pay the remuneration.

The client requested the plaintiff several times to be sure to meet the deadline before the delivery date.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff delivered the machines only after the delivery date had passed, and even then the machines did not operate properly.

As a result, the client argued that he had suffered significant economic harm, including rent and brokerage fees under the lease for the business premises.

The case above was one in which a client who had been unjustly sued in a lawsuit for the return of the price of goods, with the assistance of the Mokpo office's civil litigation attorney, obtained a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim at trial.

If you need the assistance of a Mokpo civil litigation attorney as above, you are welcome to request a consultation on civil litigation at the Mokpo office at any time.