매매대금반환
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
On March 22, 2018, between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. The reasoning of the judgment on this part of the basic facts of the claim is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the second “1. Recognition” as stated in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) 1.2 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance.
The plaintiff is added to the part of the first class of Paragraph 1 that "the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and installing steel structures."
(2) The second 1. A of the judgment of the first instance.
The part of the "purchase contract (hereinafter "the sale contract of this case")" in the 4th sentence shall be applied to "the supply contract of this case to be purchased from the defendant (the delivery contract of this case is the same as the delivery contract of this case 1-A; hereinafter "the delivery contract of this case")."
(3) The third party decision of the first instance court.
In the third part of the supply contract of this case, "the remaining balance" portion shall be raised as "the unpaid amount of KRW 95.5 million and its delay damages" under the supply contract of this case.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 95 million (225 million - 130 million - 150 million) calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 130 million paid by the Defendant in accordance with the supply contract of this case from the amount of KRW 2255 million (including value-added tax) and damages for delay thereof, unless there are special circumstances.
B. (1) As to the Plaintiff’s defenses, the Plaintiff did not normally operate the instant machinery among the instant supply contract objects after its installation and trial operation, and the Defendant maintained the instant machinery on June 8, 2018 and June 11, 2018. As such, the instant machinery must be recovered by the Defendant in accordance with the instant agreement, and the Plaintiff is obliged to pay only the amount of KRW 44 million, which is the value of the instant machinery, to the Defendant at KRW 95.5 million.
(2) Therefore, the instant case is from June 5, 2018 to June 15, 2018.