A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person that runs the repair business of semiconductor equipment, and the Defendant is a juristic person that runs the trade business related to semiconductors between the user of semiconductor equipment and the user of semiconductor equipment.

B. From July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant traded from around July 30, 2015. The Defendant ordered repair services to the Plaintiff upon receiving a request for the repair of semiconductor production equipment from a customer who is a user of semiconductor production equipment. The Plaintiff repaired the semiconductor production equipment and loaded it to the Defendant’s desired location.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the method of paying service costs around December 26, 2016 are only one so-called “boldness” as follows, with respect to the method of paying service costs:

(ii) agreed on the terms and conditions.

In other words, in the case of the first repair model, if the plaintiff approves that there is no error in the operation of semiconductor production equipment that the customer accepted by setting the quality evaluation period for three months, the defendant paid the service payment to the plaintiff, and the defendant agreed to pay the service payment to the plaintiff immediately from the last day of the month following the month in which the plaintiff's shipment belongs.

The plaintiff received a request for repair of semiconductor production equipment from the defendant, etc. as shown in the attached Table, and loaded it to a place designated by the defendant, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 2-6, 8 through 11, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff received a request for repair services from the Defendant from around July 30, 2015. However, the Plaintiff did not receive a total of KRW 40,892,910 as shown in the attached Table.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above KRW 40,892,910 and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. As to whether the Defendant is a party to the repair service contract of the aforementioned items Nos. 1, 3, and 4 as to the classification Nos. 1, 3, and 4 as indicated in the table Nos. 1, 4.