기타(금전)
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
(a) Of KRW 132,832,500 and its total amount of KRW 9,00,000, it shall be August 2016.
1. On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant under which KRW 173,50,000 for manufacturing costs (a value-added tax separate, KRW 40,000 for down payment, KRW 50,000 for intermediate payment, KRW 83,500,00 for each payment after trial run) were to be manufactured and installed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) on the following grounds: (a) on May 4, 2016; (b) on July 4, 2016, the remainder of KRW 83,50,00 for intermediate payment; and (c) on the delivery date as of August 4, 2016, the rate of liquidated damages was set at KRW 1/100 for the date of delay as KRW 1/1,100 for the machinery price.
On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 99,00,00,000 in total, KRW 33,000,000 on July 7, 2016, and KRW 22,00,000 on August 20, 2016.
The Defendant manufactured the machines listed in the attached list (the instant machines) and started to install the Plaintiff’s factory from October 29, 2016, but suspended installation work around November 11, 2016 at the Plaintiff’s request.
On November 16, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the instant contract is rescinded, as it is entirely different from the content of the instant contract (written estimate).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 22, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. In full view of the evidence cited prior to the rescission of the instant contract, as well as the following circumstances acknowledged by the commission of appraisal as to Gap19 and 20, it is difficult to view that the instant contract manufactured by the defendant has the performance generally required by social norms as agreed upon in the instant contract, and thus, the Plaintiff could not achieve the purpose of the instant contract. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant contract was lawfully rescinded around November 16, 2016, by which the said proof containing a declaration of intent to cancel the contract based on the Defendant’s nonperformance was delivered to the Defendant.
The strings of the strings of the instant machinery.