A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,397,364,154 and KRW 23,362,374,295 per annum from January 9, 2013 to October 30, 2014; and KRW 20 per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be three minutes, and one of them shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,067,408,800 won with 20% interest per annum from January 9, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

[2] Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendant seeks to pay to the plaintiff 28,143,875,285 won and 4,923,533,515 won per annum 14% per annum from January 9, 2013 to January 14, 2014, 28,143,875,285 won per annum 20% per annum from January 9, 2013 to January 14, 2014, 33,067,408,80 won per annum 20% per annum from January 15, 2014 to the day of full payment (the purport of appeal is somewhat unclear, but the defendant seeks partial damages for delay from the court of first instance to 4,923,53,5315 won as well as damages for delay).

[Defendant] The part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation part is dismissed.

(a) Conclusion of an institutional leasing contract;

On November 23, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to supply in sequence 3,50.5 billion won (per 6,258,928,571 won) of the purchase price of the goods from July 5, 2012 to December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant for the purchase of goods, the detailed statement of goods, the special conditions of the purchase of goods (hereinafter “special conditions”), the general conditions of the purchase of goods (hereinafter “manufacture”), the general conditions of the purchase of goods (hereinafter “general conditions”), the manufacturing specifications, etc. The main contents of the purchase contract, the special conditions, and the general conditions are as follows.

Goods purchase contract (total amount)

Contract amount: 350,500,000,000

Contract bond: 35,050,000,000

Rate of liquidated damages: 0.15%

Special engineer(s): Not adjusting the contract amount due to price fluctuations;

Special Conditions

Article 6 (Compensation for Delay)

(1) When the other party to a contract fails to supply goods within the supply period fixed in the contract, a contracting officer shall determine an amount calculated by multiplying the rate of liquidated damages determined in the contract by the contract price or the proceeds from supply as liquidated damages and deduct such amount from the relevant proceeds from supply.

Article 11 (Advance Payment)

(1) A contracting officer shall pay advance payment when requested by the other party to the contract pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Rules on Accounting Affairs of Public Corporations and Quasi-Governmental Institutions: Provided, That where advance payment is impossible in consideration of the budget, financial standing, etc. of the Corporation, he/she

Article 12 (Payment of Price)

Where a contracting officer is unable to pay consideration within the time limit under the provisions of Article 58 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, he may extend the time limit for payment after agreement with the contracting officer by seven days (excluding holidays and Saturdays).

Article 14 (Adjustment of Contract Amount Due to Price Fluctuations)

This Agreement shall not adjust the contract amount, notwithstanding price fluctuations.

Article 21 (Priority in Interpretation of Contracts)

The order of priority in interpreting the contents of a contract shall be as follows: Provided, That with respect to matters not specified in the contract documents or inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Rules on Contract Affairs, Enforcement Decree, etc., such mandatory

1. A contract (a purchase contract and a detailed statement of goods prices);

2. Special terms and conditions of a contract for purchase of goods;

3. General terms and conditions of the purchase of goods;

4. A written statement of purchase of goods (manufacture) and a bidding price;

5. A specification of the purchase of goods;

6. A technical proposal.

7. Other terms, etc. of integrity agreement.

General Conditions

Article 3 (Contract Documents)

(2) A contracting officer may conclude a contract by fixing special conditions for the purchase of goods, if necessary for the appropriate implementation of the relevant contract in addition to the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning contracts to which the State is a Party, goods-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and other general conditions

(3) Where special conditions for a purchase contract determined under paragraph (2) include details that restrict the contractual interests of the other party under the Acts and subordinate statutes governing contracts to which the State is a Party, goods-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and this condition, the said details shall not

Article 12 (Supply)

(1) The other party to the contract shall observe the standards, as stipulated in Article 32 of the Industrial Standardization Act, and supply the relevant goods (including the documents, etc. necessary for inspection) to a place designated by the contracting officer by the date of supply stipulated in the contract.

Article 22 (Payment of Price)

(1) When the other party to a contract has passed an inspection under Article 19 after the completion of contract execution, the other party to the contract may request the payment of price according to prescribed procedures.

(2) When a contracting officer receives a request under paragraph (1), he/she shall pay the consideration within 14 days from the date of receipt of such request. In such cases, a special contract which extends the period for payment of consideration may be concluded by an agreement with the other party to the contract within a period not exceeding 1

Article 23 (Interest for Delayed Payment of Price)

(1) Where a contracting officer receives a request for payment of consideration and fails to pay it by the deadline for payment referred to in Article 22, he/she shall pay interest calculated by multiplying the unpaid amount by the overdue interest rate applied at the time of lending general fund to the number of days from the day following the deadline for payment to the date of payment (hereinafter referred to as "number of days delayed for payment").

Article 24 (Compensation for Delay)

(1) When the other party to a contract fails to supply goods within the supply period stipulated in the contract, the other party to the contract shall pay in cash the amount calculated by multiplying the contract amount by the delayed penalty as stipulated in the contract for each number of days immediately.

(2) In cases of paragraph (1), when a contracting officer accepts (including cases where the relevant part is managed and used without accepting it) the relevant part through the inspection of the existing part, he/she shall deduct the amount equivalent to the said part from contract amount: Provided, That the acceptance of the existing part shall be limited to the cases where it is accepted as the completed part

(3) When a contracting officer deems that supply has been delayed because it falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall not include the relevant number of days in the number of days of delay under paragraph (1):

1. Where a natural disaster or other force majeure event occurs;

4. Where it is delayed due to any cause not belonging to the other party to the contract.

(4) A contracting officer shall calculate the number of days of delay as prescribed in the provisions of paragraph (1) as follows:

1. When the goods (including the documents required for inspection) are supplied pursuant to the provisions of Article 12 (1) within the supply term, the period required for inspection under the provisions of Article 19 shall not be included in the number of days without delay: Provided, That when corrective measures are taken pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 (4) after the supply term, the period from the date of corrective measures to the date of passing the final inspection of completion shall

2. When goods and inspection documents have been submitted after the expiration of the supply period, the period from the following day of the supply to the date of passing an inspection (the final inspection, when corrective measures have been taken); and

(5) A contracting officer may offset the penalty for delay calculated under paragraphs (1) through (4) against the consideration to be paid to the other party to the contract, interest for delay of the payment of consideration, or other deposits, etc.

(b) The relationship between the supply of engine trains and the receipt of prices of goods;

1) According to the instant contract, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 143,284,60,000 (the amount was first appropriated after deducting the liquidated damages for delay by vehicle of the institution from No. 1 to No. 23 (part of the attached Table 1) in the sum of the advance payment from February 23, 2010 to March 30, 201) (the amount was first appropriated after deducting the liquidated damages for delay by vehicle of the institution from No. 1 to No. 23 (part of the attached Table 1)).

2) As seen in the Table â………§), the Plaintiff filed a claim for payment with the Defendant after supplying the vehicle vehicle with the period of time set in the instant contract in sequence from 8 to 40 days, and the Defendant paid the Defendant the amount of compensation for delay calculated by deducting the compensation for delay by vehicle from November 13, 2012 to January 7, 2013, and 197,491,834,010 (the said amount was appropriated from 23 (part) to 56) in total from the partial repayment amount, as seen in the Table â………………………§, as seen in the Table â…§), respectively.

3) Meanwhile, the overdue interest rate applied to a general loan of a financial institution pursuant to Article 23(1) of the General Conditions is 4.94% or 4.84% at the time of delay as seen in the Table ‘The Table ’, and the sum of the agreed delay damages already incurred prior to the instant lawsuit is 34,989,859 won.

4) In addition, on April 4, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for the adjustment of the contract amount according to price fluctuation in the contents that the Defendant calculated the adjusted amount due to price fluctuation in accordance with Article 74 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, and subsequently, requested the Defendant to increase the contract amount by KRW 23,308,852,952 ( KRW 416,229,517 per quantity). However, on June 13, 2012, the Defendant rejected the application on the ground that there was a special clause excluding the adjustment of the contract amount due to price fluctuation in the purchase contract, and a special clause excluding the adjustment of the contract amount due to price fluctuation in Article 14 of the Special Conditions (hereinafter “instant special agreement”).

(c) Delay in the procurement of parts due to exhaustion in the Japanese site;

1) On March 5, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a contract for the supply of parts with a city (hereinafter referred to as “urbanba”) a Japanese company, and was supplied with 112 adjacent exchange devices (two adjacent pressureers per quantity), 56 neighboring voltageers (one per quantity), 56 exchange pen 56 units (one unit per quantity), from May 1, 2011 to April 1, 2012, and 336 units of towing engine (six units per quantity) from May 15, 201 to April 15, 201, respectively.

2) However, on March 11, 2011, when the same site was established, Japan’s power authorities delayed the supply of parts to the Plaintiff as a result of the occurrence of partial damage to facilities of the same site from March 14, 201 to March 18 of the same month, from March 22, and 23 of the same month, each of 1.4 hours per day, 2.4 hours per day, 24 and 25 days per day, 6.8 hours per day, 25 days per day, and 3.4 hours per month per day, and 40.8 hours per day per day (the actual pre-determination was completed 4.8 hours from among those, 4.8 hours per day). Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not have any direct damage to the quality of the facilities due to the urban pre-determination, and the Plaintiff did not have any force majeure notification to the Plaintiff on May 18, 201.

3) Accordingly, on June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to “14 days from March 14, 2011 to June 28, 201, for the extension of the payment period for 69 days in total, including 55 days from the damage to test facilities and equipment,” but did not obtain approval from the Defendant.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries, Gap's 1 through 8, 12, 13, 18, 20 through 24, 28, Eul's 2 through 5, 10, 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion on the ground of claim

Under the instant contract, the Defendant has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9,723,565,90 (i.e., the remaining amount of KRW 143,284,60,600,000, excluding the advance payment of KRW 197,491,834,010,010, and the remaining amount of KRW 197,565,990 (i.e., KRW 350,500,000 - KRW 143,284,60,600- KRW 197,491,834,010) and damages for delay - KRW 34,989,85,858 (i.e., the total amount of KRW 9,723,565,900 + KRW 34,989,859) and the total amount of KRW 23,385,285,298,385,28585,285,285,29).

B. Determination as to the total amount of the unpaid amount and damages for delay KRW 9,758,55,848

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 9,723,565,90, and damages for delay already incurred to the plaintiff 34,989,859, and damages for delay incurred to the above amount of KRW 9,723,565,90, barring any special circumstances.

C. Determination as to KRW 23,308,852,952 of the contract amount according to price fluctuation

1) The parties' assertion

Article 19 of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Act No. 11547, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “State Contract Act”); Article 64 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act; Article 74 of the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act”) and Article 5(2) of the Rules on Contracts to Which the State Contracts Act is a State Enterprises, etc. are null and void because the purchase contract and the instant exclusion agreement included in the special terms and conditions are contrary to the Enforcement Rule, or null and void because they are contrary to the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act and Article 5(2) of the Rules on Contracts to Which the State is a State Enterprises, etc. (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule and the Enforcement Rule of the State Contracts Act”), and even if they are not so, the Plaintiff is entitled to demand an increase of KRW 23,308,853,00,000 in addition to the original contract amount after the conclusion of the instant contract.

Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the provision of the State Contracts Act on the adjustment of the contract amount due to price fluctuation is merely a voluntary provision that may be excluded by an agreement between the parties. The Plaintiff loses the expectation for the increase of the contract amount under the exclusion of this case, while the Plaintiff goes beyond the risk of the reduction of the contract amount, it cannot be deemed that the exclusion of this case unfairly limits the contractual interests of the other party, and that the exclusion of this case is not subject to the application of Article 3(3) of the General Conditions, since the special agreement of

2) Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

3) Determination

A) The first issue in this part is whether Article 19 of the State Contracts Act is a mandatory law that can not be excluded by an agreement between the parties. However, whether a provision of law constitutes a mandatory law should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the language and purport of the law, the legislative purpose and purport, the necessity to deny the validity of the law, the existence of effective sanctions to realize the pertinent provision, and the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking into account the written evidence Nos. 9, 10, 11, 34, 48, 54, 55, 56, 58, and the overall purport of the pleadings.

① First of all, Article 19 of the State Contracts Act and Article 64(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act provide that “one-way contract amount shall be adjusted in the form of each text and text thereof,” “the contract amount shall be adjusted.” and “the contract amount shall be adjusted in the form of the contract.” In addition, the discretion of the public official in charge of contracts is not recognized, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 11081 on March 28, 1983, Article 95-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11081 on March 28, 1983, if it is deemed that there is a need to increase or decrease the original contract amount by more than 5/100, the original contract amount may be adjusted from the original contract amount,” and thereafter, Article 64(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act leads to the industry to prevent the amendment of the Budget and Accounts Act.”

② Meanwhile, according to Articles 16-2(1) and (7) and 25-3(1)6 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, “where adjustment of subcontract consideration is inevitable due to changes in the price of the raw materials, a principal contractor may apply for adjustment of subcontract consideration to the principal contractor, and the principal contractor shall not refuse consultation without any justifiable reason, and may impose penalty surcharges upon the principal contractor in violation thereof.” The purpose of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act or the State Contracts Act, which provides for the adjustment of contract price according to price fluctuation, is to protect the public or subcontractor as a contracting party from the risk of low-income resulting from price fluctuation after the conclusion of the contract for manufacture and supply of goods for a long time, as in the instant contract, and the legislative purpose of the contract is to protect the public or subcontractor, who is the socially and economically weak, as a contracting party, as a result of the conclusion of the contract for the manufacture and

③ In addition, according to such legislative intent, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance has expressed its opinion that “If the ordering agency determines the special terms and conditions of a contract that does not recognize the adjustment of the contract amount according to price fluctuation, it shall not be recognized as being in violation of Articles 4 and 64 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.” Furthermore, the Fair Trade Commission has a duty to adjust the contract amount due to price fluctuation according to the State Contracts Act, which is a mandatory law, even if it made a special agreement excluding the adjustment of the contract amount according to price fluctuation,” or has made a recommendation for correction [the letter of resolution (2006 No. 1571), a recommendation for correction (209 Mine1585)].

④ Furthermore, it is an exception to a general and strong increase in price disturbance due to economic development. In light of the fact that it is difficult for the country which has entered into the contract to find out the case of demanding a reduction due to price decline, the exclusion clause of this case is a provision more favorable to the Defendant than a neutral and unreasonable provision to both parties. However, even though the Defendant included the exclusion clause of this case in the bidding condition, there is no difference in granting the Plaintiff benefits under other contract or determining the contract amount by forecasting the price increase (the Defendant also expressed the view that “the risk removal is favorable to the Plaintiff by allowing the adjustment of the contract amount due to price fluctuation,” while concluding the contract that included the contract that included the contract amount adjustment system due to price fluctuation in the existing preparation in December 2, 2010, which is one year after the execution of the contract of this case, and that the exclusion clause of this case is mainly favorable to the Defendant).

B) Ultimately, taking into account the above facts comprehensively, Article 19 of the State Contracts Act provides that the Plaintiff may claim for the adjustment of the contract amount according to price fluctuation as it constitutes a mandatory law, and further, the exclusion of the instant special agreement is null and void since it constitutes “any special agreement or condition unreasonably restricting the contractual interests of the contracting parties” in violation of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act. Meanwhile, Article 3(3) of the General Conditions appears to include the contents of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act as the special clause for the purchase of goods as well as special clause for the purchase of goods (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da318 decided August 22, 2003, Article 19 of the State Contracts Act, and Article 64 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act provides that the Defendant may be excluded from the provision of Article 19 of the State Contracts Act and Article 64 of the former Enforcement Decree of the State Contracts Act with the exception of the foreign investment contract, based on the standard tender document for the issuance of IBD including the fixed contract amount.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the contract amount of KRW 23,308,852,952 as well as damages for delay due to price fluctuation.

3. Judgment as to the defendant's defense of mutual aid

(a) Deduction of penalty for delay;

1) Determination as to the defendant's assertion of mutual aid

As seen in the Table â……§, the Plaintiff supplied each agency vehicle in excess of the time limit set in the instant contract from at least 8 to maximum 40 days, and the total amount of liquidated damages for delay calculated by 0.15% per day shall be KRW 9,670,04,646, and in principle, the Defendant may deduct the above amount from the contract price of the instant case.

2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) The part on which immunity is asserted

The Plaintiff asserts that the payment liability for delay compensation is exempted because the Plaintiff made its best efforts to select a city as the first part supplier and to maintain a parts supplier after an earthquake, and ultimately, the supply of the vehicle was delayed in the end, even though the Plaintiff made its best efforts to urge the city to supply the production schedule to the city and increase the production lines, as it falls under force majeure as stipulated in Article 24(3)1 and 4 of the General Conditions, or the Plaintiff’s liability for delay was delayed due to force majeure as stipulated in Article 24(3)1 and 4, or the Plaintiff’s liability is not attributable to the Plaintiff.

In general, in cases of bilateral contract, in order for the obligor to be exempted from the liability for the payment of liquidated damages on the ground that force majeure occurred, it should be recognized that the cause occurred outside the control area of the obligor and it was impossible for the obligor to prevent it even if he/she performed ordinary means (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59475, 594, 592, 599, August 23, 2007, etc.). Furthermore, such force majeure is exempted from the obligor’s liability for nonperformance of obligation and the obligor’s damage to the other party. Therefore, it is necessary to strictly examine the requirements.

In light of the above facts, Gap 19 to 32, and 35 to 42 (including number 1) were insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion. Rather, Gap 37 evidence, Eul 7, Eul 24 evidence 25-1 and Eul 2, and the whole purport of oral argument, the "1. production progress" of the manufacturing process report of March 28, 201 was 10 and the manufacturing process of 10 to 20.10 to 17.10 to 200 to 19.10 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 3.10 to 200 to 10 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 200 to 4.1 to 20 to 10 to 3.1 to 10 to 20 to 10 to 3.1 to 20 to 10 to 20 to 20 to 10 to 20 to 10 to 1 to 20 to 1 to 2.

Ultimately, comprehensively taking account of such circumstances, the Plaintiff’s delivery delay, as well as the supply delay of urban bag, had already occurred in the Plaintiff’s own process, and even if there was a delay in the supply of urban bags, it seems that it was not impossible to overcome compliance with the delivery date by prior treatment, etc., as seen in the cases of the first and the 52th instances. In addition, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s delivery delay to the effect that the same site occurred on March 11, 201 and the Plaintiff’s delivery period was only 9.8 hours for 4 days without any particular facility damage that the Plaintiff designated as a part company, and the Plaintiff’s delivery period was 6 months from July 5, 2012 to December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff’s delivery period was overcoming the Plaintiff’s supply of parts in time (the Plaintiff’s delivery delay constitutes a justifiable cause for the Plaintiff’s delay in the supply of parts).

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since earthquake damage was an obstacle that makes it impossible to overcome timely supply of parts as urban areas, or because of the delay in the supply of parts, it cannot be deemed that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to supply the instant vehicle to the Defendant in time even after the Plaintiff took ordinary means due to the delay in the supply of parts (the designation or change, etc. of the parts supply company is basically a governing area with the Plaintiff’s authority and authority, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was actually approved by the first Defendant for the designation of the parts supply company, and that the risk burden due to the delay in the supply of parts after earthquake damage was transferred to the Defendant immediately because the Plaintiff was in fact approved by the first Defendant

B) Part on the limitation of liability claim

Even if the Plaintiff did not exempt the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay liquidated damages, the Plaintiff asserts that the agreement for liquidated damages under the instant contract constitutes an estimate for liquidated damages and the principal cause for the Plaintiff’s failure to observe the delivery deadline is caused by earthquake damage by the parts supplier, and that the Plaintiff made its best efforts to overcome the delay in the supply of the parts, and that the amount of liquidated damages in the instant case is unfairly excessive as KRW 9,670,04,646, the amount of liquidated damages in the light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s delayed pressure would result in the Plaintiff, who is the economically weak, lose fairness.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the agreement for liquidated damages is a penalty agreement, but if the agreement for liquidated damages was reached in the contract for manufacturing and supplying the goods, the defendant's assertion is not accepted since the special circumstances were not proven, in order to estimate it as an estimate for liquidated damages under Article 398 (4) of the Civil Code and interpret it as a penalty (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da57126, Jan. 25, 2002).

Meanwhile, Article 398(2) of the Civil Act provides, “Where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce it to a reasonable level.” In this context, the term “unfairly excessive amount” means cases where the payment of the estimated amount of damages is deemed to result in the loss of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the debtor who is in the position of the economically weak in light of the general social concept, taking into account all the circumstances such as the status of the obligee and the obligor, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive scheduled for the amount of damages, the ratio of the estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the estimated amount of expected damages, the size of expected damages, and the transaction practices at the time (see the above Decision 9Da5712

On the other hand, the plaintiff is actually dedicated to the market as an electrical engine supplier of domestic oil days. The plaintiff's only once in 2009 can not be deemed to be an economically disadvantaged person, such as entering into a supply contract with the defendant for the total contract amount of 5,53.4 billion won with the defendant only by means of a single bid. The rate of liquidated damages is 0.15% in accordance with Article 11 (1) of the State Contracts Act, Article 74 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, Article 75 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, and it is difficult to regard the liquidated damages at a particularly high rate. The amount of liquidated damages at KRW 9,670,04,646 is 350,50,000,000 for contract amount of 350,500,000 won, and it cannot be deemed that the ratio of the contract amount to the plaintiff's operating income under the contract of this case is excessive. The plaintiff's supply without delay, but it is clear that the plaintiff's losses have occurred.

B. Claim for deduction of interest on advance payment

The defendant asserts that since 17,836,658 won, 14,730 won, 14,763,39 won, and 352,526 won, 534 won, total of 53,521,34 won, 537 won, and 352,526 won, 534 won, and 53,531,347 won, in relation to the supply of the third supply after the payment of the advance pursuant to Article 37 (1) 3 of the Government Tender and Contract Execution Standard and then the return is inevitable due to the occurrence of an accident, etc. and due to a cause attributable to the other party, the other party to the contract is obligated to return the advance payment to the defendant after the receipt of the advance payment.

However, Article 37 (1) 3 of the Guidelines for the Enforcement of Government Tender and Contract refers to carrying forward expenses incurred in the event of failure to submit them within the pertinent year during which an act of incurring expenditure occurred. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff delayed the delivery of the instant electrical vehicle, it is difficult to regard the Plaintiff as “cases where the obligation to return the advance payment due to the month of the accident has occurred” only because it is difficult to regard the Plaintiff as “cases where the obligation to return the advance payment due to the month of the accident has occurred” and the delay of the delivery deadline separately agreed on compensation for delay,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's obligation to pay 9,75,848 won (=9,723,565,90 won + 34,989,859) and 23,308,852 won (i.e., 9,758,55,848 won + 23,067,408,80 won + 23,308,848 won + 23,670,852,952 won + 23,644,646 won calculated by deducting the total amount of damages for delay from 23,39,364,154 won (i.e., 33,067,408,670,6464,6464 and 859) to the plaintiff at the point of 20.30% of the total amount of damages for delay, which the plaintiff seeks from 23,394,395,394,2945.3

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] ?Sgd. : omitted

[Attachment 2] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)